Soft focus.. Handler Issue? or Equipment Issue?

[mikepalo]

<p>I have a Nikon D200 there are 2 lenses I have which I am comparing shots between,</p>

<p>AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Lens<br>

AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED</p>

<p>I am noticing that my shots with the macro lens(even shots to infinity, not just macro) seem to always be sharp and crisp, where as my shots with the 24-85mm always seem to be a bit soft, not blurry, just not nearly as crisp. I was wondering I have heard some people mention other lenses being soft before. Is this what is happening here? Am I just dealing witha soft lens or is it something I might be doing wrong?<br>

If you have any questions or need any additional information just feel free to ask. Thanks<br>

-Mike</p>

[bms]

<p>Michael,<br>

is that new equipment for you?<br>

First: not really surprised the 60 Marco look sharp - it is a superb lens :)<br>

Second: Hard to tell by your account only. I owned the 24-85 and I was pretty happy withit on a D80 but never really pushed it. Can you post some pictures? Is it overall soft? Does it happen at all apertures and focal lengths? Could it be backfocusing?<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>Ben</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Are you using the lenses at the same aperture when you make those tests?<br /><br />The 60/2.8 is a high quality prime (fixed focal length) lens, and though it's optimized for up-close work and isn't at its best out at infinity, it's still a very sharp lens. Most less-expensive, slower, variable aperture zoom lenses are going to present some optical compromises. There's a lot more going on in that zoom, in terms of glass elements that need to move about.<br /><br />Try comparing them at around f/8, and use a tripod. See what that does for you. Also, don't manually set the lens on infinity - let the camera handle the focusing, or visually focus (with the D200's focus confirmation green dot helping you) to make sure you're actually on the spot. These lenses are actually built to focus <em>past</em> infinity, mechanically, for several reasons. Don't let that throw off your testing.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>What kind of tripod are you using? Cable release? Mirror-up? Are you shooting newspapers taped to a wall a few feet away, or something real?</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>You didn't say what aperture you were using. As Matt said try to shoot them both at f8 and see if you can tell a big difference. A lot of times subjects do look sharper with a micro lens because you are that much closer.<br>

To answer your question specifically.<br>

1) Yes some lenses are known to be softer in focus than others.<br>

2) A prime lens (like your 60 mm) is generally sharper than a zoom lens.<br>

3) A fast lens (like your 60 mm) will produce sharper focus stopped down than a slow lens wide opened.<br>

4) When you focus the macro to a close subject the relative aperture automatically get smaller so your focus is sharper. You also get shallower depth of field which is either good or bad. </p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Thank you everyone for your comments.</p>

<p><strong>Ben</strong></p>

<p>No this is not new equip for me</p>

<p>I seem to notice it a lot when i am shooting. I actually haven't done any side by side comparison shots...from all the comments I guess i should. Its just something I've been noticing in general. My shots never seem to be as crisp coming out of the 24-85 lens.</p>

<p><strong>Matt</strong></p>

<p>I never set the camera to infinity, or actually for that matter i normally don't ever manually focus on anything, the camera just seems to be able to do it fast and efficiently enough for anything I shoot. I'm gonna go set up my tripod and cable release and take a few shots at a distant target(I know the micro will be better in close) and see what I come up with.<br>

<strong>Edward</strong></p>

<p>I shoot real not newspaper lol :) generally when I'm shooting I normally don't use a tripod or cable release. My normal preferred subject matter doesn't really have the time for a tripod set up.</p>

<p><strong>Hansen</strong></p>

<p>As i said i don't say what f/ I'm using because its a general issue not a specific one.</p>

<p>I appreciate ur specific answers tho, They are most of what i was looking for.</p>

<p>While im doing my test shots...</p>

<p>Does anyone have this AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G ED and can anyone tell me do they notice it to be a softer lens then their other lenses?</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Here are 2 test shots:<br /> ISO 100<br /> 1/250s<br /> 60/62mm<br /> Shot on a tripod w/ a Trigger release</p>

<p>(i had to move the tripod inbetween the shots to let a car out so the perspective changed just slightly)</p><div></div>

[mikepalo]

<p>Zoomed in on the FS comparison</p><div></div>

[mikepalo]

<p>Oh and also those were shot at F/8 sorry forgot to put that in there.</p>

<p>The clarity difference is slight but I can see it never the less, let me know what you think....maybe im hullucinating lol :)</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>There is a difference in image quality. That is the reason why I love my primes so much.;-) I much rather risk getting dirt in my sensor while changing lens than to use a zoom.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Now, if this is an effect of it being a zoom lens, will i see this kind of softening in all zoom lenses? ...if i spend $1500 and buyt the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 for instance, will I see the same type of soft focus no matter what just because its a zoom?</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>If you don't use a tripod, camera shake is more significant than any difference between lenses.</p>

<p>The 24-70 is an high-performance lens, comparable to any "prime" lens in its focal length range. You pay handsomely for that performance. I have a 28-70/2.8, and the only sharper lens I have used is an ancient 55/2.8 AIS Micro. In addition to being very sharp, the 28-70 has negligible chromatic aberation and very low distortion. The 24-70 is all that and more.</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>I normally don't shoot wiht a tripod as i was saying earlier but i also normally am shooting in enough available light and warm enough temperatures that I can hand hold my setup easily without worry of camera shake. Thankfully, I have very steady hands. If need be can shoot down to almost 1/20s at shorter ranges and can easily shoot with my 300m zoom outdoors and still have my pictures come out crisp and clear, though I do prefer to avoid the kind of shot which really pushes the extremes of those limits. But when an unexpected shot arrises you have to use what u have available. :)<br>

<br />But about the lenses themselves what you are saying is that the more expensive zoom lenses effectively what you are paying for is the clarity of ur focus, which does makes sence. I just alwasy thought with all those lager more expensive lenses you were just paying for the "brighter lens" being able to run a f/2.8 at 70+mm which i mean I guess u are, but I never thought that the focus sharpness would be visible in the price difference as well.<br>

I guess that is all the more reason for the concept of "buy once and buy well."</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I can get useable shots at 1/20 second or slower, but the batting average goes down. Under no circumstances would I call them sharp. Everybody shakes, and that shake dominates the image quality at shutter speeds up to 3x the "focal length" rule. Even with a tripod you have to exercise due diligence, including using cable release and locking the mirror up (at 1/15 sec, I get a 2 MOA shake from the mirror on an Hasselblad, and about 1 MOA using the focal plane shutter vs the lens shutter). Diligence should be capitalized!</p>

[mikepalo]

<p>Ok, I'm just gonna bite the bullet on this one. ... Not to sound like a complete amature but...well I am lol. What is the Focal Length Rule? And what is MOA? I was trying to find them online so I wouldn't have to ask, but... I couldn't find it so.... Here I am..Asking....also ...Focal plane Shutter vs Lens Shutter? .... As i say in my profile I'm completely self taught and only seriously for the past 2yrs or so, so I dont know alot of the technical speak, bear with me please. Thanks for your responces.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

MOA is an abreviation for minute of angle (1/60 degree). Camera shake (yaw) is on the order of 20 MOA/second. The longer the lens, the greater the effect on the image.

<p><p>

The minimum shutter speed for hand-held use is equal the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens. If you use a 200mm lens, that would be 1/200 (perhaps rounded up to 1/250). For the average person, camera shake at that speed will be roughly equivalent to the uncertainty used for depth of field. For cropping DSLR's, use the equivalent focal length (e.g., 1.5x). It also seems to apply to medium format cameras, although an 100mm lens at 1/100 of a second isn't very sharp for my taste.

<p><p>

That might be OK for an 8x10 inch print held at elbow-length, but is not really sharp for critical purposes, such as lens evaluation.

<p><p>

Not all pictures need to be critically sharp. Strong subject matter usually trumps all other concerns, as well as the intended use. Many things, like concert, theater and ordinary news photos just need to be "good enough". Landscapes and studio setups are in another class. If you don't use a tripod with medium format, the results are no sharper (and usually worse) than for 35mm.