Nikon 17-55mm Camera Shake?

[robert_delaurentis1]

<p>Jason,</p>

<p>There are only three possibilities, the camera moved, the subject moved, or the camera didn't focus. But any one (or combination) of those possibilities contain in themselves a half dozen possible causes, everything from low light to lens defect. Hence the long laundry list you've seen here. Each needs to be evaluated to narrow down the list of suspects until you know the cause, then fix it. No consensus has developed because there isn't enough information to reach a conclusion. I suggested low light as the most likely cause, in my opinion, because there isn't obvious directional blurring that would indicate movement. But softness is often subtle, and I've learned that the more certain I am of anything, the more likely I'm wrong.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The point to me is this: I have a great camera and a professional level lens that takes blurry and soft pictures more than half the time I use it</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One of the selling points of a violin is that it can make beautiful music; but it demands much more skill than pressing Play on an iPod. The reason your G3 takes so many wonderful sharp images is because it's depth of field is so, well, deep - its nearly impossible to get the blurry backgrounds that make wide-aperture lenses and SLRs so attractive to so many photographers. As a consequence of the deep depth of field its very difficult to take an out of focus image. Contrast that to your 2.8 lens, which has a depth of field at f2.8 which is far shallower than the G3, as a consequence the focus subsystem has to work a lot harder, the tolerances the camera is working with are much narrower. Lower light, the tolerances narrow even farther. Its like threading a needle compared to hitting the same needle with a hammer. Pro equipment isn't easier to use, or take better inherently better photographs, it merely takes you to places you cannot otherwise go. There is uncountable number of situations where a D90/17-55 can work magic while the G3 would not be capable of even making an exposure.</p>

<p>I hope you keep working on this problem until its solved. Everyone here who has taken the time to answer your question really wants to see you succeed, and are genuinely curious as to what went wrong. We can all learn something from your experiences. In any event, I wish you the best of luck. Any child that photogenic deserves to have his photo taken - a lot!</p>

<p>Best,<br /> Bob</p>

[jrichardson]

<p>Walter, I performed the test you described. The photos came out sharp and in focus, no need to post them. Then I turned around a few minutes later, under almost identical lighting, and took a picture of one of my kids. A crop is below. I was using Auto for the child pic, the auto focus indicated 3 focus areas straight up and down on the center of the face (multi focus points as opposed to the single focus point I use for manual mode). I was also using the SB600. The hand, which was closer to the camera than the face, was in focus, and not what was indicated by the auto focus of the camera. It shouldn't be this difficult to take an in-focus picture, should it? I have multiple pictures where objects closer than the focus point are in focus, instead of what was indicated in the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Bob, I do appreciate all the responses. I am frustrated, but I understand that something like this can't always be diagnosed over the internet. I don't intend on giving up. The thing is, people pick up cameras all the time and shoot pictures of children. It shouldn't take a controlled environment to get a picture that is in focus. I will give you the point you made on the G3 regarding DOF. But, in the shooting that the first picture I posted above came from, I had plently of pictures that should have resulted in over a foot of sharp, in-focus subject, according to DOF calculators I used (after the fact). I can't show you an accurate picture of the sun light that was entering the room. However, I can say that the available light during that shoot was greater than the light I had shooting the book in Walter's example above (available light for focusing, not the actual exposure since I used a flash for the book picture and I didn't use a flash for the baby pictures).</p>

<p>I'll keep trying other things. I'm also going to experiment between the 17-55 and the 50 1.4. The D90 and 17-55 are new to me. I had a D80 and the 50mm for about 3 months. I never had these focusing problems using the D80 and the 50mm. I no longer had the D80. Wish I did, as it would make for easier testing, swapping lenses around on different cameras and viewing the results.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Jason, it looks like the hand is in focus. I would suggest you use single-point AF. The D90's Multi-CAM 1000 has only one cross-type AF point in the center. If you use any other AF point indoors, AF could be a problem. The D200, D80 and D5000 all share that same AF module.</p>

[robert_delaurentis1]

<p>Well the tests are great news, it sounds if its not at all related to an equipment defect. As for how easy or hard it is, I agree it should be easy to pick up and shoot, but its simply not going to be using that camera and lens in available light based on what I can infer by looking at the sample image's light qualities.</p>

<p>I second Shun's suggestion. Setting a1 AF Area Mode to Single Point. Then, put the center focus point on your child's eye to lock focus, recompose, shoot.</p>

<p>For what its worth I suspect that in the last image you posted, the child's hand is in focus because the flash AF assist lamp did the heavy lifting instead of the assist lamp on the body, and the short duration of the flash froze any movement. Because the image was shot in full auto and the camera thought the flash was necessary, that underscores the likelihood that the light level is a bit low. The first image was f3.5, and in the second, f4 - both are slowing the lens down quite a bit compared to if the camera was in A mode at 2.8. I'm half-guessing, but think that switching to A mode, f3.5 and using the flash might get closer to your desired goal.</p>

<p>b</p>

[nick herbert]

<p >Jason,</p>

<p >There is hope: </p>

<p >After my last post I went away to experiment. I was determined to get to the bottom of this and I refuse to accept the fact that this ‘pro-quality’ lens that I had wanted for so long (and had paid so much for) was letting me down for some reason. Just like yourself, if I took a hundred shots and only 50 came out sharp – that’s not good enough. Especially when I know that if I took the same shots with my 18-70mm then I would get a much better success rate.</p>

<p >Anyway, I took a large number of shots of several different subjects, under various lighting conditions (both indoor & outdoor), using various combinations of aperture and shutter speeds, and at different focal lengths.</p>

<p >The results were as follows:</p>

<p >The sharpest aperture I found was between f5.6 – f8 (no real surprise there)</p>

<p >I could not seem to get a handheld, sharp image at speeds of less than 1/100.</p>

<p >At speeds of between 1/100 and 1/250, 50% of the shots were blurred, 50% sharp.</p>

<p >At speeds of 1/500 and above, the results were consistently sharp. In fact, I took several shots of my girlfriend outside at f5.6 at 1/500, and every single one came out extremely sharp. I couldn’t get a blurred/out of focus image if I tried!</p>

<p >At no point did I encounter any ‘out of focus’ problems.</p>

<p >My conclusion (for what it’s worth) is this:</p>

<p >I believe that the problems I have been experiencing are purely down to camera shake during the exposure. The reason why I seem to have this problem with the 17-55mm on my D200 rather than any other lens, can only be down to the size/weight of the camera/lens combination, and my ability to ‘steady’ it when I pressing the shutter. </p>

<p >I am now happy after seeing that this lens is capable of producing consistent, sharp images if used correctly. I guess practice makes perfect. As a result, I will not be selling it on e-bay after all.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Jason,<br>

D90 handles AF-A differently from other Nikons, when you press shutter release button halfway AF is not locked and picture can be taken with subject out of focus. And with one cross sensor it is not perfect in low light. Switch to single serve AF (AF-S) mod it will fix your problem.</p>

[jrichardson]

<p>Nicholas, I suppose that is good news if you are happy with it. I am not. I will continue to practice, maybe it is camera shake, although people in this thread simply state that the picture is out of focus, and there is no camera shake evident in the pictures. I bought this lens for the sole purpose of photographing my twins, which, right now, is probably 90% in doors. I'm not going to get shutter speeds that fast in doors, so it doesn't help me any. I'm also not going to put the camera on a tripod every time I pick it up to take pictures of babies. Like we've both said earlier, we have other, cheaper, less professional lenses that we get better results with in low light. It just doesn't make sense that a constant 2.8 aperture lens that is known to be a great lens takes worse pictures inside than a kit lens with variable aperture.<br>

Others, I'm not sure what AF I was using during the Auto picture I posted of the hand and face. My first picture that I posted on May 14th was shot in AF-S, as were the other 400+ that I took that day. More than half of the pics that day were out of focus.</p>

 

[richard_wood5]

<p>Jason,</p>

<p>The problems you are having are quite strange. I own the 17-55 f/2.8 and it is one of the sharpest, most accurate focus (except at infinity) lenses that I have used. I had the kit lens for a while and it didn't perform as well on any level, just for comparison. I infrequently use a tripod, unless I'm shooting at less than 1/60th of a second, or need ultimate sharpness and have the luxury of a tripod. I'm afraid there are a couple things you might want to consider here -</p>

<p>First, it sounds like you might have a defective lens. Perhaps an exchange or repair is in order. This lens WILL focus on any point that you give it, in any condition short of darkness. And it will do it very quickly.</p>

<p>Second, if your lens is not defective, then you may want to practice aiming your focus points at your subject. Again, if your lens is not defective, it will focus on any point that you give it. </p>

<p>Also, make sure that your ISO and aperture are not going to make your photos blurry. The higher the ISO the less detail that will be captured. The bigger your aperture (smaller F-number), the more sensitive the DOF. (covering the obvious here)</p>

<p>Since you are shooting babies (photographing, to be clear), I might also recommend turning your camera on to continuous-focus (the 'C' on the front lever that reads M S C). Keep the focus point in the viewfinder on the part you want to be most focused by pressing the shutter half-way down, then when you see the moments you want to capture, press the shutter the rest of the way down, all the while, holding as still as you possibly can.</p>

<p>Make certain that your focus mode is set to single-point focus and that the camera is set to only release the shutter if focus at the point you select is found (focus-priority). This will prevent you from firing the shutter if the lens is not focused (and unless your body is defective, it truly will not, and will show you if your lens is defective by the number of times the shutter won't release). I have rarely, if ever had this lens not find focus, and prevent the shutter from releasing (out of numerous thousands of pics).</p>

<p>Finally, be certain that you are not moving when you're taking pictures, and that your shutter speed is above 1/60th (or faster, depending on how able you are to hold still).</p>

<p>So, in my message here is kind of a check-list. If you complete these steps, and are still getting blurry pictures, your lens and/or camera may be defective. The D80/90/200/300 &17-55 f/2.8 is one of the sharpest camera/lens combos you can get, and is highly geared toward event/people/low-light photography. If you can't get it to work, you have a defect in equipment or user. It's that simple.</p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

[laseng_lasengo]

<p>Could it be a back or front focusing lens? Google 'lens back focus' or 'lens front focus', download a focus test chart, and run the test. I had to return an 80-200 2.8d because it was back focusing and my d300 could not compensate enough. i would adjust at 200mm but 80mm will be off. I returned the lens but i'm still not sure if back/front focus is a camera or lens issue (or both). The symptom is that the focus looks good in the viewfinder but when shot and viewed at 100%, some pictures were blurry even when taken on a tripod. I also found that 135mm is the sweet spot on my copy and hardly affected by the af fine tune on the d300. I concluded that it was back focusing after shooting a focus test chart. I've read that a calibration (nikon service) might be able to remedy a back or front focusing lens.</p>

[jrichardson]

<p>Laseng, I have suspected a front focus problem for the last couple of days. I tried a few pics with my 50mm lens and achieved similar results as the 17-55: things closer to the camera are in focus more than the actual focus point. I have gotten some good pictures with the 17-55, so maybe it is related to different focal lengths like you describe. I actually printed off a focus test chart yesterday, hopefully I will be able to perform the tests today or tomorrow. I'm going to do it with all my lenses at different focal lengths to see what I come up with.</p>

[laseng_lasengo]

<p>Set to aperture-priority, f2.8, shoot at 17/35/55, and then enable the focus point indicator in View NX as someone suggested above.</p>

[jrichardson]

<p>Well, it does appear that I have at least a front focus issue with the D90 and 17-55. I did a few quick tests using 2 different focus charts and got the same results. Set the tripod to 45 degrees, used the timer on the camera, plenty of overhead light for focusing. Initially, 55mm seems to be fine, it not a very small amount of back focus. 35mm is off a good bit, and 17mm is getting closer to normal again. I will conduct more tests with other lenses later today.</p><div></div>

[laseng_lasengo]

<p>Jason, it's good that you were able to finally nail down the problem on your 17-55. I just want to add that when i did my focus test on the 80-200, I saved the af fine tune setting on the d300, turned the camera off, and turned it on to try the next shot because the manual is not clear on when these changes take effect... if on the fly or not. Anyway, I was able to discern the change in focus area/clarity after making the af fine tune changes but fine-tuning it at 200 negatively affected 80. I have a trip coming up so I do not have the time to send the lens to nikon for a diagnosis/calibration. My next question is what's next? Can a lens be really calibrated? Should the body be calibrated? Or both? I also have the 17-55 but I haven't tested it like the 80-200. I'm reluctant to focus test it using the chart right before the trip :) I've shot hundreds (if not a few thousand) of pictures with it already and I don't have a reason to think that it has focus issues because I've been very satisfied with the results. Please continue to let us know regarding your next steps. Good luck.</p>

[jrichardson]

<p>Wow, I just spent almost 2 hours on the phone with Nikon service. They seem to think there is nothing wrong. I opened a ticket and sent them blurry pictures. The service guy on the phone said they were out of focus because I was using a big aperture. He told me that even 5.6 is too big to get a focused picture???</p>

<p>One of the pics I sent was of 4 bottles, each a little closer to the camera than the last. I focused on one, and the one near it that was closer to the camera is what was in focus. He said that is normal. See crop below. I had a hard focus lock on the bottle on the left. One on the right was in focus. He blamed it on the wide aperture, even though ViewNX showed focus lock on the left bottle. I had to go to a manager, who eventually said she didn't think it needed to be sent in for repair. Level 3 techs ? are supposed to look at all the blurry pics I sent and get back to me tomorrow.</p>

<p>How disappointing.</p><div></div>

[richard_wood5]

<p>Jason,</p>

<p>If your focus point was truly on the left-most bottle (say, on the text), even at f/5.6, these images should be sharp. One reviewer, from the past, said that f/5.6 was the sharpest point for this lens (for what's in focus). The right-most bottle is clearly more in focus. It looks like there's some cyan fringing around the glare on the top of the bottle, too - I'm not used to seeing fringing with this lens, so perhaps that's another point to hit them with. It isn't radical, but something.</p>

<p>Is there any possibility of exchanging the lens with the dealer that you got it from? That would fix your problems. If you have other lenses, perform the same tests and see if you get identical results. That would help identify any body/user issues, if the results come out the same. </p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

[jrichardson]

<p>The bottle picture was taken at 2.8. The focus was clearly on the left bottle, verified in the viewfinder and in the ViewNX Nikon software. The help desk guy at Nikon used 5.6 as an example of a still-too-big aperture to get the left bottle in focus. I don't care what aperture I used, the left bottle wording should be in focus, not the bottle on the right.</p>

<p>I did more tests with 3 of my 4 lenses (17-55, 50 1.4, and 18-105). The 17-55 experienced front focus. The 50 and 18-105 experienced back focus. The 18-105 was pretty bad at 50mm. I sent them more pictures using the different lenses. I heard back from tech, and they want me to send in the camera and lenses for testing/adjustments. I will go so far as to say that I am convinced it is the D90 body. I had no problems with the 50mm and 18-105 on my D80 body.</p>

<p>I bought the 17-55 used, so it cannot be returned, although if it becomes a warranty issue, the seller said he would take care of it. We'll see.</p>