AF 80-200mm f/2.8D ED ... soft at f/2.8

[doggyhugs]

well, get this right. TS original qn was softness at f2.8( go see 1st post). and even if your 80-200 has absolutely no focusing issue, it will still be softer compared to f4. no matter how you focus, 80-200 IS softer at 2.8

haha
- Yes, his original qn was asking the softness of lens.
but look at the pictures at #18.
(Focus run)
- and later #26 went into the issue of back/front focusing.

this is what we were referring to,

minimum focus range, 1.5m
200mm
f5.6 (NOT 2.8)
center focus

see the focus run from the nose to cheeks.
i understand that zoom lens have this softness thing,
but its not even FOCUSING at the point we want?

imagine taking butterflies at 200mm?
its blur but the leaves behind it look damn sharp?
(my heartbreaking experience)

 

[whkoh]

Well... maybe you didn't get a perfect copy of the lens, but that wouldn't be really surprising. This post at DPreview is informative.

 

[andrewtansj]

am using d200, most prob will get it back next week... sure hope they can calibrate it...

gotten my 80-200mm back from NSC... well... they couldn't calibrate it... apparently they claim that it was a known problem for the front/back focusing issue when trying to focus subjects that are relatively close (from 2-5m) but the technician told that there won't be any issue focusing at further distance, and told me that there shouldn't be problem focusing at infinity! upon hearing that I was really appalled... why would there be a focusing problem at infinity... then gave an explaination/excuse that this lens was made for F4 and F5 camera full frame bodies at that time, so when used on cropped sensor cameras there might be some problem with the focusing at close distance... In my mind I was really thinking "what a load of bullsh**t!", wouldn't you? I was not convinced, and told him I don't buy that excuse, (well I'm usually not so persistant but after hearing all those explainations...) so he brought a D3 for me to test...(hehe... 1st time tried D3... amazing camera man... took my time to play around with the camera even it is not relavent to my lens problem :bsmilie: the AF motor on D3 drive the focusing speed much faster and quieter then my D200, can tell the difference on the 1st focus already, power! even the clapping sound of the reflex mirror and release of shutter sound so much nicer... hahaha...sorry out of topic liao... was too excited with the D3...) ok back to the focusing problem... guess what... the technician was right! I couldn't believe it... on D3, the lens was able to focus accurately even at close distance, I tried comparing the lens on both bodies and realised that there was really a difference... well, not sure why but it seems to work better on D3... so well bottom line... buy a D3...:bsmilie: just joking, bottomline, try not to use it to AF on close subjects at 200mm, works relatively ok when focusing on 200mm at around 5m away from subject. did some test shots today, I'll try to post it later... hope this helps to clear the issue of the back/front focusing issue, as for the answer to the TS, well picture taken on f2.8 at 200mm is little on the soft side, with CA issues as well...

 

[andrewtansj]

well here are the test shots did today,

shot at f2.8, 1/350, 145mm, iso 200 on D200 around 3m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop
seems to be relatively sharp considering that it was not sharpen.

shot at f2.8, 1/250, 200mm, iso 200 on D200 around 4-5m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop
image is considerably much softer, not sure whether was it caused by the focusing. doesn't look like camera shake either.

well, all lenses have their own pros and cons, just like if you say that 70-200VR is better, some would says that it does not work well on full frame. it is really up to how you use it, and how much you expect from it. what I think is sharp might not even be acceptable to some other pixel nicking people.

 

[surge]

well here are the test shots did today,

shot at f2.8, 1/350, 145mm, iso 200 on D200 around 3m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop
seems to be relatively sharp considering that it was not sharpen.

shot at f2.8, 1/250, 200mm, iso 200 on D200 around 4-5m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop
image is considerably much softer, not sure whether was it caused by the focusing. doesn't look like camera shake either.

well, all lenses have their own pros and cons, just like if you say that 70-200VR is better, some would says that it does not work well on full frame. it is really up to how you use it, and how much you expect from it. what I think is sharp might not even be acceptable to some other pixel nicking people.

my 70-200 produce such pictures too at 2.8. on the softer side. down to f4 everything is tack sharp

 

[ExplorerZ]

focusing problem on the 170-200mm at near distance is a freaking common problem of this lens if you do try google up, sadly my copy got it as well but it seems to work fine on my friend d80(or i haven test it hard enough :sweat tho i got used to it but i still miss quite a number of shot because of it :cry:.

 

[2.8photography]

focusing does not seem to be the problem with my lens...

this shot was taken at 1/320s, f/2.8, 155mm, ISO 200. heres a crop:

at first, i thought it was cam shake. but the rest of the image doesnt seem like it is - its just soft. and besides, it was taken at 1/320s. also, there isnt such a problem at shorter focal lengths (80mm, 100mm) or smaller apertures (just f/4 will make a big difference) but stopping down all the time will defeat the purpose of buying such a lens in the first place

will calibrating the lens help?

thanks in advance

 

[andrewtansj]

focusing does not seem to be the problem with my lens...

this shot was taken at 1/320s, f/2.8, 155mm, ISO 200. heres a crop:

at first, i thought it was cam shake. but the rest of the image doesnt seem like it is - its just soft. and besides, it was taken at 1/320s. also, there isnt such a problem at shorter focal lengths (80mm, 100mm) or smaller apertures (just f/4 will make a big difference) but stopping down all the time will defeat the purpose of buying such a lens in the first place

will calibrating the lens help?

thanks in advance

is ur lens still under warranty? maybe you might want to check it out with them... funny there isn't a point focused, if you were to go down, remember to bring this or maybe a few test shots to support your claim for the lens faults so they can find out according to the infomation from the picture

 

[ExplorerZ]

focusing does not seem to be the problem with my lens...

this shot was taken at 1/320s, f/2.8, 155mm, ISO 200. heres a crop:

at first, i thought it was cam shake. but the rest of the image doesnt seem like it is - its just soft. and besides, it was taken at 1/320s. also, there isnt such a problem at shorter focal lengths (80mm, 100mm) or smaller apertures (just f/4 will make a big difference) but stopping down all the time will defeat the purpose of buying such a lens in the first place

will calibrating the lens help?

thanks in advance

sad to say, the shot u posted looks like ur hand is shaking really badly. even the sharper region looks like there is movement

 

[andrewtansj]

sad to say, the shot u posted looks like ur hand is shaking really badly. even the sharper region looks like there is movement

maybe u wanna try to test on tripod?

 

[surge]

focusing does not seem to be the problem with my lens...

this shot was taken at 1/320s, f/2.8, 155mm, ISO 200. heres a crop:

at first, i thought it was cam shake. but the rest of the image doesnt seem like it is - its just soft. and besides, it was taken at 1/320s. also, there isnt such a problem at shorter focal lengths (80mm, 100mm) or smaller apertures (just f/4 will make a big difference) but stopping down all the time will defeat the purpose of buying such a lens in the first place

will calibrating the lens help?

thanks in advance

ideally shooting at 1/320 shouldnt be handshake problem. but this shot really looks like handshake than anything else. like the previous reply says, mount tripod to be sure.

 

[2.8photography]

is ur lens still under warranty? maybe you might want to check it out with them... funny there isn't a point focused, if you were to go down, remember to bring this or maybe a few test shots to support your claim for the lens faults so they can find out according to the infomation from the picture

its not under warranty anymore - quite old already. i also thought it was hand shake, initially. but then a lot of shots at 200mm f/2.8 came out like this.

will try again with a tripod and post up the results soon

 

[lsisaxon]

ideally shooting at 1/320 shouldnt be handshake problem. but this shot really looks like handshake than anything else. like the previous reply says, mount tripod to be sure.

Agree with this. Try a tripod or maybe use flash.

 

[iamblurblur]

don't know why but for me i would think that the first image is sharp enough... the second one does look a bit softer... does it mean that we are limited to a shooting distance of 2-5m for 200mm focal length? err... it does seems like defeating the purpose of zoom when u can stand so near (<2m)to take a picture?

 

[iamblurblur]

well here are the test shots did today,

shot at f2.8, 1/350, 145mm, iso 200 on D200 around 3m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop
seems to be relatively sharp considering that it was not sharpen.

shot at f2.8, 1/250, 200mm, iso 200 on D200 around 4-5m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop
image is considerably much softer, not sure whether was it caused by the focusing. doesn't look like camera shake either.

well, all lenses have their own pros and cons, just like if you say that 70-200VR is better, some would says that it does not work well on full frame. it is really up to how you use it, and how much you expect from it. what I think is sharp might not even be acceptable to some other pixel nicking people.

these two pictures i was refering to...

 

[iamblurblur]

this is always very encouraging for me not to bother too much on the weakness on the lens...

"There is no one perfect lens but there are perfect photographers that can fully perform the strength of each lens".

Just enjoy photography.

 

[nemesis32]

I think in the 1st place, all lenses are built in such a way that the largest and smallest aperture will not be sharpest for that particular lens. Hence, a f2.8 lens will usually be pin sharp from F4 onwards. This is one of the reason why people pays for the biggest, fixed aperture. Next, each lens is again a bit different, some could be lemon. It's sad but true.

 

[TMC]

well here are the test shots did today,

shot at f2.8, 1/350, 145mm, iso 200 on D200 around 3m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop
seems to be relatively sharp considering that it was not sharpen.

shot at f2.8, 1/250, 200mm, iso 200 on D200 around 4-5m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop
image is considerably much softer, not sure whether was it caused by the focusing. doesn't look like camera shake either.

well, all lenses have their own pros and cons, just like if you say that 70-200VR is better, some would says that it does not work well on full frame. it is really up to how you use it, and how much you expect from it. what I think is sharp might not even be acceptable to some other pixel nicking people.

2nd pic at 200m. I think your focus area is wrong, you might want to check the other areas and where your focus point is.

 

[andrewtansj]

don't know why but for me i would think that the first image is sharp enough... the second one does look a bit softer... does it mean that we are limited to a shooting distance of 2-5m for 200mm focal length? err... it does seems like defeating the purpose of zoom when u can stand so near (<2m)to take a picture?

what I mean is try not to shoot at 200mm within 2-5m.

 

[andrewtansj]

2nd pic at 200m. I think your focus area is wrong, you might want to check the other areas and where your focus point is.

am very sure that I've focused on the eyes, thats why I mentioned that it is either it back focused or the picture is soft. actually most of the images that I've taken at 200mm are rather soft at wide open.

another sample shot.

shot at f2.8, 1/640, 200mm, iso 400 on D200 around 5-7m away i think (raw file, unedited)

100% crop, ignore the blur in between the eyes, it is water droplet frozen in mid air.

rather soft at 200mm as well...:dunno: or is it not focused on the spot?