Strange distortion/blur when using Nikon 16-35mm f/4???

[Madison Etherington]

f4, relatively sharp (but not mind blowing)
Losing Light by f_one_eight, on Flickr

f22, incredibly sharp
Falling Down by f_one_eight, on Flickr

All with the same lens. No lens (especially wide angles) will be incredibly sharp wide open from distances like that.

Jake

I'm not bothered that it won't be sharp wide open, because that's a given, but the effect that I'm seeing is annoying and makes the images look like they are not even close to sharp. I would be fine with an image like your first image.

 

[D-B-J]

That is quite strange too. I also have this lens and it's incredibly sharp... Maybe you have a bad copy?

That's what I'm wondering.
I love the lens and I am totally willing to purchase a new copy if that is the issue.
Do you have any images shot at 16mm wide-open that I could see as a comparison?

is there a filter on the lens?

In the images included, only a UV filter.

OOOOOO... what kind of UV filter? A quality one? Or a crap one?

 

[Madison Etherington]

All lenses exihibit this behavior. They're softest wide-open, improve as you start to stop down, then sharpness drops off a bit as you stop down to minimum due to diffraction.

I've looked at sample images from this lens at 16mm wide open and haven't seen this same blur/ghosting effect, which is why I'm puzzled.

But at what apertures where the samples taken at? This lens is most likely sharpest at f/8 - f/11. If the samples you viewed were taken in that range, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Also, it was asked if you had a filter on the lens. If so, try taking it off.

They were taken wide open, at f/4.
I only had a UV filter on the lens, as I was hiking and didn't want any damage.

 

[480sparky]

I'm not bothered that it won't be sharp wide open, because that's a given, but the effect that I'm seeing is annoying and makes the images look like they are not even close to sharp. I would be fine with an image like your first image.

But what you're not seeing is the pixel-peeping you're doing to your own images.

 

[Madison Etherington]

is there a filter on the lens?

B&W, I paid pretty good money for it, knowing that I'd get what I paid for.

I'm not bothered that it won't be sharp wide open, because that's a given, but the effect that I'm seeing is annoying and makes the images look like they are not even close to sharp. I would be fine with an image like your first image.

But what you're not seeing is the pixel-peeping you're doing to your own images.

I know that in the long run it doesn't matter, but I paid a lot of money for this lens, and as a penny-pinching college student, I don't really have that money to blow on something that isn't going to give me the results I expected.
I participate in several photography competitions throughout my school year, and in judging the images, they view them digitally, the same way I do, and if they're not sharp they are not even considered.
I would just like to know that my copy of the lens is working properly, or if I should just get a new copy.

 

[480sparky]

1. Take the filter off.
2. Start shooting at f/8 - f/11
3. Report back with your results.

 

[tirediron]

The 'UV filter' idea never even occurred to me! Definitely bin that and try again. Even pixel-peeping on shots from the D800, this lens (my copy) is MUCH, MUCH sharper than being shown here.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Have you checked to see if there is a haze on the UV filter of one of the lens elements? Try holding the filter at an angle to the light and see if you can detect a slight haze. A lot of "optical cleaners" tend to leave a slight haze behind which can have this effect. I've dealt with something similar before and ended up converting to just lens pens and lens clothes for cleaning.

 

[Madison Etherington]

1. Take the filter off.
2. Start shooting at f/8 - f/11
3. Report back with your results.

The 'UV filter' idea never even occurred to me! Definitely bin that and try again. Even pixel-peeping on shots from the D800, this lens (my copy) is MUCH, MUCH sharper than being shown here.

Alrighty.
I'll be back at some point in the near future with, hopefully, better results.

Have you checked to see if there is a haze on the UV filter of one of the lens elements? Try holding the filter at an angle to the light and see if you can detect a slight haze. A lot of "optical cleaners" tend to leave a slight haze behind which can have this effect. I've dealt with something similar before and ended up converting to just lens pens and lens clothes for cleaning.

I actually only use lens pens so that shouldn't be an issue.
I didn't notice any haze when I looked.

 

[480sparky]

Have you checked to see if there is a haze on the UV filter of one of the lens elements? Try holding the filter at an angle to the light and see if you can detect a slight haze. A lot of "optical cleaners" tend to leave a slight haze behind which can have this effect. I've dealt with something similar before and ended up converting to just lens pens and lens clothes for cleaning.

Also, sometimes the filter leaves the factory with a haze on it.

 

[D-B-J]

The 'UV filter' idea never even occurred to me! Definitely bin that and try again. Even pixel-peeping on shots from the D800, this lens (my copy) is MUCH, MUCH sharper than being shown here.

I do have to agree with this. When pixel-peeping my images seem sharper than those posted above. Maybe it's the filter!

 

[CmazzJK]

Why buy from Ebay instead of a reputable Nikon dealer if you're willing to pay full price? This is confusing to me...

 

[KmH]

Yep. A cheap UV filter could be the problem.
Filters, clear or UV, put on a lens for 'protection' often cause more problems than they solve.
Soft focus, increased lens flare, Newton's rings, chromatic aberration, etc.

Plus if a clear or UV 'protection' filter gets broken the sharp shards of filter glass often get pushed back against the front lens element the filter was supposed to protect scratching or gouging the front lens element. Further damage can be caused by the sharp shards when the broken filter is unscrewed from the front of the lens.

 

[480sparky]

Yep. A cheap UV filter could be the problem..

I wouldn't exactly call B+W 'cheap'.

B&W, I paid pretty good money for it...

 

[D-B-J]

Yep. A cheap UV filter could be the problem..

I wouldn't exactly call B+W 'cheap'.

B&W, I paid pretty good money for it...

Oh I missed that part...