Test shot w/ Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8

[jlharris]

<p>I just got my D700 and a used Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 lens. The lens arrived today and I made some test exposures @ f/2.8. I'm concerned that the focus might be off.<br>

This link is to a full res jpeg: http://www.jlh-photo.com/dsc_0364.jpg<br>

D700, Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 (non-D), 1/50th sec @ f/2.8, 1600 ISO.</p>

<p>I focused on the eyes, but they're very soft at 100% zoom. The hair seems sharper than the eyes even. Is the focus on the lens off? Did I just miss my focus? Camera shake?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Joe</p>

 

[jay_poel]

<p>Looks soft from noise to me.<br>

Do you have a shot in better lighting?</p>

[ryan_long]

<p>What was the focal length? It could be camera shake, but the lack of sharpness, particularly in the eyes seems to be more of a motion blur problem than a focusing issue. I tend to keep a minimum of 1/60 shutter speed with models that I know can sit still. For me, children are models that I wouldn't rely upon to sit very still at all. It looks like he just started to look somewhere else the second you hit the shutter, blurring the eyes but leaving other areas in focus.</p>

<p>That's what I see anyway and shouldn't be taken as gospel</p>

[jlharris]

<p>For a more controlled test, I put the camera on a tripod and shot my gray card/focusing target at a sharp angle at ISO 200.<br>

http://www.jlh-photo.com/DSC_0396.jpg<br>

I used Live View to center the center AF point on the + in the middle of the target.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>thta is pretty uncontrolled as well. TApe a sheet of newspaper, preferably the stock market listings, to a wall and be very careful about making surethe camera is parallel to the wall. shoot at different apertures. Use AF but for Live View focusing do not and make sure liveview is in tripod mode.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Too many variables. That's not the best way to test a lens for sharpness: ISO 1600 in lighting that was probably around EV 4 or 5 with a slow shutter speed, handheld of a non-stationary subject, close up with a wide open lens and razor thin DOF.</p>

<p>I'd need half a dozen such photos just to get one really sharp and maybe another acceptably sharp. I was "testing" my 85/2 AI-S Nikkor yesterday that way on my Siamese (ISO 1600, handheld, 1/30-1/60 sec. @ f/2). Took me more than a dozen shots to get two in sharp focus. And the cat and I were sitting down.</p>

<p>Try it with a tripod mounted camera on a stationary target at a lower ISO. The 35-70/2.8 AF Nikkor should be satisfactorily sharp wide open, getting significantly better by f/4.</p>

[jlharris]

<p>Ok, I don't have any newsprint in the house, so I used a coupon with a barcode. I set the AF point on the bar code.<br>

<a href="http://www.jlh-photo.com/35-70mm f2.8 - 0001.jpg">http://www.jlh-photo.com/35-70mm f2.8 - 0001.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.jlh-photo.com/35-70mm f4 - 0001.jpg">http://www.jlh-photo.com/35-70mm f4 - 0001.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.jlh-photo.com/35-70mm f5.6 - 0001.jpg">http://www.jlh-photo.com/35-70mm f5.6 - 0001.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://www.jlh-photo.com/35-70mm f8 - 0001.jpg">http://www.jlh-photo.com/35-70mm f8 - 0001.jpg</a><br>

And for comparison:<br>

<a href="http://www.jlh-photo.com/50mm f2.8 - 0001.jpg">http://www.jlh-photo.com/50mm f2.8 - 0001.jpg</a></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Looks about right. Mine might be slightly sharper wide open and at f/4, but your copy seems very good by f/5.6. I seldom use it wide open unless absolutely necessary, such as when photographing a recent nighttime industrial fire.</p>

<p>You might also try comparing results between AF and manual focusing. Instead of relying on the focus confirmation dot, focus by eye. With some lenses my D2H is very slightly off using the focus confirmation dot so I don't trust it, preferring to eyeball focus just as I would with the FM2N or F3HP.</p>

[bms]

<p>Seems very soft to me at 2.8 - have mot done extensive testing with mine, but I have the same combo and I think mine is pretty sharp....</p>

[wj_lee]

<p>How are you focusing this?</p>

<p>Don't tust the autofocus too much, try to hyperfocus manually at appertures at 2.8 and 4 and see what the best result is like.</p>

[steve_king5]

<p>If the autofocus isn't accurate...what does it matter how sharp it is if you hyperfocus manually? :)</p>

<p>Looks incredibly soft at f2.8 in my opinion. <shrug> Can you return it w/out hassle?</p>

 

[wj_lee]

<p>I thought the point of this thread was finding out whether the lens was sharp or not, not whether autofocus is accurate or inaccurate.<br>

It doesn't look quite right at 2.8 and 4, far too much veiling, may be some elements are hazy. Can you tell me which focal length you are testing it at so that I can compare it to mine.</p>

[jlharris]

<p>The posted test shots are all at 70mm.</p>

[steve_king5]

<p>I guess (and I'm truly not trying to be contentious) if the 50mm lens is sharp at 2.8, assuming it was autofocused, and lens "X" looks like it was smeared with vaseline....Why dig into the mystery further? Return it, get it fixed, or sell it on eBay 'glass is perfect', as ones ethics dictate.</p>

[jlharris]

<p>From this image: <a href="http://www.jlh-photo.com/DSC_0396.jpg">http://www.jlh-photo.com/DSC_0396.jpg</a> (it's full resolution so you can zoom to 100%)<br>

Doesn't the problem seem to be that the focus (autofocus) is off, rather than haze? As I said, when I shot this I set the center AF zone on the center of the + on the target, and it seems to be focusing at a point an inch and a half to two inches nearer to the camera.<br>

I tried to use the camera's AF Fine Tune setting, but it doesn't appear to have any effect at all. Maybe because this is an older non-D lens.</p>

[bms]

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>you maybe right. You could try one of these DIY focusing charts on the internet. Anyway, you got me all thinking, so I had to test my lens (it is actually the AF-D version) to see how soft it is at 2.8, now that I am home.</p>

<p>I just skimmed it, but look at this thread re front focus and the 35-70.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00K2Bb</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Ben</p>

<div></div>

[jan_nielsen]

<p>Joseph, how big is this coupon in real life ? (I will try to make the same test when I get home).</p>

[wj_lee]

<p>Here is a quick sample of mine. Shot hand held at 2.8 with speed of 1/180 on my d100 which has similar pixel density as d700. Processed using ACR at default setting without and sharpening. Results from my d100 are always on a little soft side due to strong AA filter (also it was hand held and not very high shutter speed and the letters are behind plastic), but the point is that the images don't have as much veiling as yours.</p><div></div>

[wj_lee]

<p>Here is the 100% crop of the central portion.</p><div></div>

[gerry b.]

<p>I had a 35-70mm 2.8 non-D, and thought that it was not as sharp as it should be (this was using slide film). So I sent it to Pete Smith, who is a prominent Nikon lens repair specialist. He said that the lens had a bad component that is a characteristic problem with age in non-D versions of the lens. I cannot remember whether he said that the needed component was no longer available, or whether the repair price was unacceptable, but I decided to forget it. I got a 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 instead, which is a much cheaper lens, and it has been a very useful if slower lens. It performs quite well on a D200.</p>

[jlharris]

<p>I've gotten an estimate from Midwest Camera Repair for $101 - $156 + return shipping. I'm going to send it in and see if they can repair it.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help folks! I really appreciate it!</p>

[jlharris]

<p>Midwest Camera Repair says they fixed my lens and did a CLA. Total is $113. It's on it's way back and I will test again. Asked eBay seller for a partial refund of the repair price before I sent it in. I'm asking him to refund the full repair amount now, since I went out on a limb to get it fixed.</p>

[sarah_nguyen]

<p>Hi Joseph,<br /> Wondering if you got this figured out? What's your lens like now??<br /> I stumbled across this forum because I just picked up a non-D version, second-hand, from a dealer here in Sydney... and mine definitely seem soft and hazy in the middle. Unfortunately your links don't work anymore, so I can't compare. Perhaps others could help me out?<br /> I compared it with a 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR that I have at 70mm and f5.6. From my eye I think my 35-70mm is even soft in the centre at 5.6, esp compared to 100% crop of the 35-70mm, which is meant to be one of Nikon's sharpest lenses! Would appreciate some feedback. What do you think?<br /> All shots on 70mm, ISO 200, f5.6, 1/25 second on tripod, Nikon D90, incamera sharpening set to 0.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sarah-nguyen.com/35-70_tests/35-70-f5_6.jpg">35-70mm on f5.6, straight out of camera from RAW (@70mm)</a><br /> <a href="http://www.sarah-nguyen.com/35-70_tests/70-300-f5_6.jpg">70-300mm on f5.6, straight out of camera from RAW (@70mm)</a></p>

<p>They're full res images so you should be able to get 100% crops in the browser (I think...) Lastly, it seems like the focal length - even though nominally both are 70mm - is different? Why would this be? Both are full frame lenses, so I'm a bit confused...!</p>

[sarah_nguyen]

<p>double post, not sure why, sorry</p>

[ak_siong1]

<p>Hi Sarah,<br>

Your 35-70mm f2.8 non-D has a rear-element fogging problem. The pics that you posted look exactly like the the pics taken by mine - a bit soft and lack of contrast. I bought mine on eBay from a dealer in Sydney but luckily was able to return it after I identified the problem.<br>

See this post:- <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Gcuk">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Gcuk</a></p>