wahliaodotcom
New Member
Find someone who has another Nikon body and mount your 80-200mm on it and take a few shots to see if it gets the same blurness. If its not, could be ur Nikon body.
Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8D problem
- Thread starter 2.8photography
- Start date
- Status
:kok:... i rather have this effect done in photoshop :sweat:
anywhere here is one more at 200mm f2.8, can't rmb how far im at, but definitely not more than 10m away
Full
100% crop
wildstallion
Senior Member
Doesnt matter, the shutterspeed was enough to compensate, and it doesnt look like handshake, best thing you can do like i said before is take it to nikon.
2.8photography
Senior Member
:kok:... i rather have this effect done in photoshop :sweat:
anywhere here is one more at 200mm f2.8, can't rmb how far im at, but definitely not more than 10m away
100% crop
its still sharper than mine
anyway thanks very much for all of your comments. i have pretty much confirmed that the problem lies in the lens.
when i have the time i will send to nikon
so thanks again
I'm now up to my 3rd copy of this lens trying to solve these problems. My first two had a back focus issue in the range of about 1 1/2 inches. I also got a weird diffused glow with the socond one. Just picked up the third today but initial tests (this time in the shop) look much better. I'm not too sure what the issue is and if it will perform better on future Nikons. I hope so as there is no way i can afford the 70-200 VR
Last edited:
the backfocusing issue is a problem indeed for this lenses. Got a few solutions to this:
1) get a fullframe (heard that it is ok on full frame sensor and this is a pro lens used in film days before VR).
2) get the 70-200VR (previously, i dont believe in it....but after the recent chngpe organized D700 BK session, I am sold)
3) try to not shoot at f2.8 for focal length of 185mm-200mm.
4) dont focus on small subject at that focal length
I find its a superb lens still....indoors 1/60, f2.8, TTL flash, I can get shots that are sharp to the eyelashes still...maybe its fluke though...but i am impressed by its quality still.
whatever it is, just make ur equipment work for you
agreed, i believe my copy is capable of archiving that sharpness as well.
anyway windforce, do u mind posting 100% crop of her hair? might be able to tell if there is any backfocus
hardly find any good example that are done at low iso + f2.8 + <5m focusing :sweat:.
Last edited:
well, viewed at normal screen size its definitely good enough(ok most lens are more than capable), but if u actual pixel-peep, u can see its a little back focus, her hair on the right side of her face are a tack sharper than those on her left(nearer to you).
When shooting film, I rarely blow up to more than 24" on the long side.
For 12MP, when you view at 100%, the long side is like blown up to 42" (~100dpi). How many lenses can handle that?
IMO, this kind of quality is already considered very good.
sharp or not sharp is one thing, but if one can have it sharp with correct focus, its definitely better than having a super sharp lens that backfocus frequently. ain't that why nikon is coming out with all this auto-focus fine tune? they not there without reason.
personally i don even mind the huge drop of sharpness at 200mm compare to 80-170mm, but its the backfocus that is the problem 90% of the time
Last edited:
Yes.. back/front focus is a problem with tele or fast lenses. Fine tune definitely helps.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
2.8 softness is ok..
back focus is a no-no, working at 1.5m to 5m with this lens is worrying..
(windforce picture: shirt's collar even sharper than her eyes.. -.-)
- Status
Similar threads
