Not impressed with new prime lens. Am I doing something wrong?

[07Vios]

Whats the problem? I dont see a problem on the 2 photos.

I agree with you, the two photos are what I would call okay. They are not razor sharp but certainly usable. However I should mention that these were the best two photos of approximately 15 I took in those few minutes. For every one photo (like the one I posted) I would get 4-5 that were just worse, some more blurry some ridiculously blurry. What's more frustrating is that it was impossible to tell which ones came out okay which ones didn't until I uploaded them (it wasn't anything obvious like my hand shook or something). So I would say this lens is less consistent in giving me decent pictures when compared to my say 18-55 kit lens where I can count on at least 1 out of 2 photos looking great. This is contrary to what I read about hundreds of people saying something along the lines of "this lens is razor sharp and produces crisp and consistent photos every time." I can only suspect that this inconsistency in my hand held shots is due to lack of VR in the lens which everyone seems to think the lens doesn't need. Another thing is I was actually able to replicate similar pictures, with similar consistency in similar lighting conditions with my 18-200 lens without flash, yes I agree the prime lens was better, but marginally (unlike what everyone claimed it blowing the kit/zoom lenses out of the water).

There's absolutely no need for VR on such a short lens. Use 1/40 or 1/50s and good holding techniques and you won't suffer from camers shake. Zoom or telephoto lens is a different story because as the focal length grows your shutter speed will need to speed up for hand held shots.

Hell, I don't have VR on any of my lenses and I don't have camera shake issues. It's all in proper holds and sufficiently fast shutter speeds for the focal length.

Mind sharing your hand holding technique? I need to find one that works from people's experience, rather than just stuff I can read online. I don't want to have to rely on a tripod, even when it's sunny outside. lol. Yes, I don't have steady hands, or at least my form is incorrect. Non of my lenses have image stabilization aside from my kit lens, which I rarely use.

 

[o hey tyler]

I agree with you, the two photos are what I would call okay. They are not razor sharp but certainly usable. However I should mention that these were the best two photos of approximately 15 I took in those few minutes. For every one photo (like the one I posted) I would get 4-5 that were just worse, some more blurry some ridiculously blurry. What's more frustrating is that it was impossible to tell which ones came out okay which ones didn't until I uploaded them (it wasn't anything obvious like my hand shook or something). So I would say this lens is less consistent in giving me decent pictures when compared to my say 18-55 kit lens where I can count on at least 1 out of 2 photos looking great. This is contrary to what I read about hundreds of people saying something along the lines of "this lens is razor sharp and produces crisp and consistent photos every time." I can only suspect that this inconsistency in my hand held shots is due to lack of VR in the lens which everyone seems to think the lens doesn't need. Another thing is I was actually able to replicate similar pictures, with similar consistency in similar lighting conditions with my 18-200 lens without flash, yes I agree the prime lens was better, but marginally (unlike what everyone claimed it blowing the kit/zoom lenses out of the water).

There's absolutely no need for VR on such a short lens. Use 1/40 or 1/50s and good holding techniques and you won't suffer from camers shake. Zoom or telephoto lens is a different story because as the focal length grows your shutter speed will need to speed up for hand held shots.

Hell, I don't have VR on any of my lenses and I don't have camera shake issues. It's all in proper holds and sufficiently fast shutter speeds for the focal length.

Mind sharing your hand holding technique? I need to find one that works from people's experience, rather than just stuff I can read online. I don't want to have to rely on a tripod, even when it's sunny outside. lol. Yes, I don't have steady hands, or at least my form is incorrect. Non of my lenses have image stabilization aside from my kit lens, which I rarely use.

The best tips I can give you are to hold your hand under the camera like this:

It will help stabilize your camera, rather than having your hand over top of it pushing down on the lens barrel. (I apologize that the example includes my ugly mug.)

If you have a grip, use it. The added weight also increases stability. Using the viewfinder also helps, as the camera can rest against your head... Also nullifying movement. Furthermore, you can take a deep breath before the shot, almost like a sharpshooter.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Whats the problem? I dont see a problem on the 2 photos.

I agree with you, the two photos are what I would call okay. They are not razor sharp but certainly usable. However I should mention that these were the best two photos of approximately 15 I took in those few minutes. For every one photo (like the one I posted) I would get 4-5 that were just worse, some more blurry some ridiculously blurry. What's more frustrating is that it was impossible to tell which ones came out okay which ones didn't until I uploaded them (it wasn't anything obvious like my hand shook or something). So I would say this lens is less consistent in giving me decent pictures when compared to my say 18-55 kit lens where I can count on at least 1 out of 2 photos looking great. This is contrary to what I read about hundreds of people saying something along the lines of "this lens is razor sharp and produces crisp and consistent photos every time." I can only suspect that this inconsistency in my hand held shots is due to lack of VR in the lens which everyone seems to think the lens doesn't need. Another thing is I was actually able to replicate similar pictures, with similar consistency in similar lighting conditions with my 18-200 lens without flash, yes I agree the prime lens was better, but marginally (unlike what everyone claimed it blowing the kit/zoom lenses out of the water).

There's absolutely no need for VR on such a short lens. Use 1/40 or 1/50s and good holding techniques and you won't suffer from camers shake. Zoom or telephoto lens is a different story because as the focal length grows your shutter speed will need to speed up for hand held shots.

Hell, I don't have VR on any of my lenses and I don't have camera shake issues. It's all in proper holds and sufficiently fast shutter speeds for the focal length.

Okay what you say makes technical sense however from practice I'm noticing at least 8 out of 10 pictures taken with this lens come out blurry. On the other hand (at a comparable focal length) most of my pictures taken with my kit lens come out relatively sharp. The only difference between the two lenses is the VR, actually the prime people say should be sharper so I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong, if anything. I've been told by other people I've shot with that I have a good steady hand for photos and I'm not experiencing issues with any other lenses, so that's why it's kind of difficult to accept it's nothing but an unsteady hand, I actually wish it was. And trying to use a tripod won't be a valid test for me because I specifically bought this lens for taking hand held shots in lower light situations without flash and so that I don't have to use a tripod. I'll experiment more though.

 

[480sparky]

Breathing techniques, like those use for firing guns, also helps.

Inhale, then exhale half-way, then hold your breath.

In addition, don't jam the shutter button. GENTLY press it down.

 

[SCraig]

There's absolutely no need for VR on such a short lens. Use 1/40 or 1/50s and good holding techniques and you won't suffer from camers shake. Zoom or telephoto lens is a different story because as the focal length grows your shutter speed will need to speed up for hand held shots.

Hell, I don't have VR on any of my lenses and I don't have camera shake issues. It's all in proper holds and sufficiently fast shutter speeds for the focal length.

Image stabilization / Vibration reduction / whatever name you want to give it is a valuable TOOL however it is not a replacement for proper handling technique. I agree with nola.ron that VR should very seldom be necessary on a lens that short since proper camera holding technique would allow one to shoot at 1/35 second or slower without VR. The generally accepted rule of thumb for shutter speed is the reciprocal of the focal length (i.e. 35mm = 1/35 second, 100mm = 1/100 second, etc.). If you are only getting 1 out of 2 of your shots with an 18-55 in focus then it sounds to me like your camera holding technique is part of your problem because you should be getting ALL of them in sharp focus unless you are trying to shoot with a very slow shutter speed.

In addition to the advice given above pertaining to focus testing, I would suggest going outside in bright sunlight and taking some shots of something with some detail at shutter speeds of 1/1000 or greater or from a tripod. That speed should pretty much eliminate any holding issues EXCEPT stabbing the shutter release. If you are stabbing the shutter release that is a habit you'll just have to break.

 

[nola.ron]

I agree with you, the two photos are what I would call okay. They are not razor sharp but certainly usable. However I should mention that these were the best two photos of approximately 15 I took in those few minutes. For every one photo (like the one I posted) I would get 4-5 that were just worse, some more blurry some ridiculously blurry. What's more frustrating is that it was impossible to tell which ones came out okay which ones didn't until I uploaded them (it wasn't anything obvious like my hand shook or something). So I would say this lens is less consistent in giving me decent pictures when compared to my say 18-55 kit lens where I can count on at least 1 out of 2 photos looking great. This is contrary to what I read about hundreds of people saying something along the lines of "this lens is razor sharp and produces crisp and consistent photos every time." I can only suspect that this inconsistency in my hand held shots is due to lack of VR in the lens which everyone seems to think the lens doesn't need. Another thing is I was actually able to replicate similar pictures, with similar consistency in similar lighting conditions with my 18-200 lens without flash, yes I agree the prime lens was better, but marginally (unlike what everyone claimed it blowing the kit/zoom lenses out of the water).

There's absolutely no need for VR on such a short lens. Use 1/40 or 1/50s and good holding techniques and you won't suffer from camers shake. Zoom or telephoto lens is a different story because as the focal length grows your shutter speed will need to speed up for hand held shots.

Hell, I don't have VR on any of my lenses and I don't have camera shake issues. It's all in proper holds and sufficiently fast shutter speeds for the focal length.

Okay what you say makes technical sense however from practice I'm noticing at least 8 out of 10 pictures taken with this lens come out blurry. On the other hand (at a comparable focal length) most of my pictures taken with my kit lens come out relatively sharp. The only difference between the two lenses is the VR, actually the prime people say should be sharper so I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong, if anything. I've been told by other people I've shot with that I have a good steady hand for photos and I'm not experiencing issues with any other lenses, so that's why it's kind of difficult to accept it's nothing but an unsteady hand, I actually wish it was. And trying to use a tripod won't be a valid test for me because I specifically bought this lens for taking hand held shots in lower light situations without flash and so that I don't have to use a tripod. I'll experiment more though.

One thing it could be is that you are used to VR. More experienced people can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe VR allows for at least a full stop or 2 slower shutter on the same focal length than on a non VR equivilant lense. In other words maybe on a VR you could shoot 35mm @ 1/20s but on non VR you would need to speed it up a stop or 2.

If you really feel you have a bad lens then swap it out and see if you get the same outcome.

 

[07Vios]

There's absolutely no need for VR on such a short lens. Use 1/40 or 1/50s and good holding techniques and you won't suffer from camers shake. Zoom or telephoto lens is a different story because as the focal length grows your shutter speed will need to speed up for hand held shots.

Hell, I don't have VR on any of my lenses and I don't have camera shake issues. It's all in proper holds and sufficiently fast shutter speeds for the focal length.

Mind sharing your hand holding technique? I need to find one that works from people's experience, rather than just stuff I can read online. I don't want to have to rely on a tripod, even when it's sunny outside. lol. Yes, I don't have steady hands, or at least my form is incorrect. Non of my lenses have image stabilization aside from my kit lens, which I rarely use.

The best tips I can give you are to hold your hand under the camera like this:

It will help stabilize your camera, rather than having your hand over top of it pushing down on the lens barrel. (I apologize that the example includes my ugly mug.)

If you have a grip, use it. The added weight also increases stability. Using the viewfinder also helps, as the camera can rest against your head... Also nullifying movement. Furthermore, you can take a deep breath before the shot, almost like a sharpshooter.

I don't have a battery grip, unfortunately. So I hold with my hand on the body grip, and I think I always have my left hand at the side or bottom of the lens, but all the way near the focus ring (even if I'm using AF). So should I put my left hand closer to the body and always at the bottom of the lens? Also, I think it might be my breathing. See below.

Edit: also, is your left hand palm in or palm out? If my left hand is under the lens, I think my palm is facing out.

Breathing techniques, like those use for firing guns, also helps.

Inhale, then exhale half-way, then hold your breath.

In addition, don't jam the shutter button. GENTLY press it down.

I've never fired a gun before =(

But since you described it, I'm doing it wrong. I take in a deep breath, and hold. HAHA. I'll try half-way exhaling the next time I'm shooting. I also try to be gentle when pressing the shutter button. Could it be possible that I'm overly gentle, thereby causing more hand shaking?




Appreciate the tips, and this may help the OP as well =)

 

[o hey tyler]

I don't have a battery grip, unfortunately. So I hold with my hand on the body grip, and I think I always have my left hand at the side or bottom of the lens, but all the way near the focus ring (even if I'm using AF). So should I put my left hand closer to the body and always at the bottom of the lens? Also, I think it might be my breathing. See below.

Edit: also, is your left hand palm in or palm out? If my left hand is under the lens, I think my palm is facing out.

I've never fired a gun before =(

But since you described it, I'm doing it wrong. I take in a deep breath, and hold. HAHA. I'll try half-way exhaling the next time I'm shooting. I also try to be gentle when pressing the shutter button. Could it be possible that I'm overly gentle, thereby causing more hand shaking?

Appreciate the tips, and this may help the OP as well =)

My palm would be facing towards me, if that's what you're asking. Having my palm facing outward is too uncomfortable. I would move your hand slightly closer to the body if its towards the end of the lens usually.

 

[07Vios]

I don't have a battery grip, unfortunately. So I hold with my hand on the body grip, and I think I always have my left hand at the side or bottom of the lens, but all the way near the focus ring (even if I'm using AF). So should I put my left hand closer to the body and always at the bottom of the lens? Also, I think it might be my breathing. See below.

Edit: also, is your left hand palm in or palm out? If my left hand is under the lens, I think my palm is facing out.

I've never fired a gun before =(

But since you described it, I'm doing it wrong. I take in a deep breath, and hold. HAHA. I'll try half-way exhaling the next time I'm shooting. I also try to be gentle when pressing the shutter button. Could it be possible that I'm overly gentle, thereby causing more hand shaking?

Appreciate the tips, and this may help the OP as well =)

My palm would be facing towards me, if that's what you're asking. Having my palm facing outward is too uncomfortable. I would move your hand slightly closer to the body if its towards the end of the lens usually.

Cool, thanks. Going take some time breaking my habit of having my palm facing away from me and my left hand closer to the body. I can see why having my palm face outward would actually hurt steadiness. Less surface area to aid in steadying the camera.

 

[jake337]

Oh, and from what I've seen in reviews, the 35 1.4 is soft in the corners wide open, suffers from distortion, and CA. So I guess even the $1600 35mm Nikon isn't perfect...

/flamebait

True.

This why I am saving for nikkor 28mm f1.4 af-d.

 

[tevo]

D40 has bigger sensor than other crop SLRs?

You can't compare sharpness across different focal lengths?

DxOMark doesn't do real world tests?

Someone is wondering why a $200 wide open prime lens hand held in low light at 1/50 isn't producing stunning images?

 

[cgipson1]

Cool, thanks. Going take some time breaking my habit of having my palm facing away from me and my left hand closer to the body. I can see why having my palm face outward would actually hurt steadiness. Less surface area to aid in steadying the camera.

read this... it is applicable to using a camera too....US Marine Shooting Team Guide

I shoot a modified tactical stance with pistols and with my camera... and I am pretty steady that way. I stand with my body at a 45 degree to the subject with my left shoulder forward (I am right handed, and right eyed), legs basically shoulder width apart. For camera, I brace both elbows (actually back of the triceps) on my chest. Use the viewfinder, good breath and trigger control (see the first link). Camera is in right hand... standard grip. Left hand cups the lens in my palm.. with fingers controlling focus ring if needed.

With practice, you will be amazed at how stable this is.

 

[07Vios]

This was just changing my hand placement and which way my palms faced. Both were shot with my 100mm at f3.2 and 1/100th second. I chose this because any hand shake will be visible with those settings. No PP, just converted to JPEG from RAW in PS. Also tried that half face lit and half face in the shadow technique. LOL

 

[07Vios]

Cool, thanks. Going take some time breaking my habit of having my palm facing away from me and my left hand closer to the body. I can see why having my palm face outward would actually hurt steadiness. Less surface area to aid in steadying the camera.

read this... it is applicable to using a camera too....US Marine Shooting Team Guide

I shoot a modified tactical stance with pistols and with my camera... and I am pretty steady that way. I stand with my body at a 45 degree to the subject with my left shoulder forward (I am right handed, and right eyed), legs basically shoulder width apart. For camera, I brace both elbows (actually back of the triceps) on my chest. Use the viewfinder, good breath and trigger control (see the first link). Camera is in right hand... standard grip. Left hand cups the lens in my palm.. with fingers controlling focus ring if needed.

With practice, you will be amazed at how stable this is.

Awesome. Thanks! Gonna read up after I post this reply. =)

 

[daggah]

This is exactly what I do with all my lenses. I know where the 'sweet spot' is for each one, and if it's a zoom that spot may change over the focal length change.

Which is why it's such a shame that the D3x00 and D5x00 series can't fine-tune autofocus.