Nikkor 70-300mm lens not focusing in close?

[thistleandthat]

<p>since i'm a newbie myself, I have no idea what to tell my friend who is having problems with a lens she just bought. she has a Nikon D40 and just purchased the Nikkor 70-300mm lens for it and she just emailed me saying that its not getting in as close as she thought it would. now since I have never used that type of lens on any camera, i don't know how "close" is "close" for that particular lens. i know she wanted to be able to sit in the stands or stand on the sideline of her son's football games and get some really good close up shots of him on the field. did she get the wrong type of lens? or is there some settings that she needs to change on the camera body in order for the lens to get closer up?<br>

if you can help, i'd really appreciate it. you'll have to tell me exactly which buttons need to be pushed though, since I have a Canon.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>You could interpret her comments in two ways. One, that the lens is not properly auto-focusing on subjects that are close to the camera, say 1-2 meters away. Or two, that when she zooms in to the 300mm point (for maximum image magnification) that the subject is still not filling up the viewfinder for a good picture.<br>

In the first case, she needs to check the owner's manual that came with the lens to determine the "Minimum Focusing Distance". Every lens has a minimum focus distance, and if the subject-to-camera distance is less than the minimum focus distance then you will not be able to achieve sharp focus. In that case you have to switch to some sort of macro lens.<br>

Last winter I tried using a Nikkor 70-300 lens on a D300 to achieve a "macro" shot on a gold bracelet. I found that if I got closer than say 1.5 meter then I could not achieve auto-focus lock on the gold bracelet. But if I backed away just a few inches, the AF worked OK. So there is a minimum focus length to be aware of.<br>

It sounds though like she is zooming all the way in, and her subject is still not filling the viewfinder,even at the len's maximum magnification. In this case, she needs to get closer to her subject, if she can. Or she needs a higher magnification lens (expensive). Or she needs to get an accessory that can be attached to a lens to extends its effective zoom focal length. I think you can by "extension tubes" that fit between the camera and the lens tha will do this. And there are "magnifier filters" that you screen on the front of a lens that will magnify the image 1X, 2X, 3X, 4X, etc. But, negatively, an attachment like this will very slighly degrade the optical quality of the picture, so the picture may not be as sharp and clear as she wants it.<br>

Can you clarify which of these two situations is the case with your friend? Also, can you clarify exactly what model the lens is? A 70-300 lens designed for 35mm frame is going to look different in the D40 viewfinder, compared to a 70-300 designed for digital camera.</p>

[hans_janssen]

<p>according to Nikon:</p>

<strong>Minimum Focus Distance</strong>

4.9 ft. (1.5m)

For the VR and non VR version.

 

[JAPster]

<p>You could interpret her comments in two ways. One, that the lens is not properly auto-focusing on subjects that are close to the camera, say 1-2 meters away. Or two, that when she zooms in to the 300mm point (for maximum image magnification) that the subject is still not filling up the viewfinder for a good picture.<br>

In the first case, she needs to check the owner's manual that came with the lens to determine the "Minimum Focusing Distance". Every lens has a minimum focus distance, and if the subject-to-camera distance is less than the minimum focus distance then you will not be able to achieve sharp focus. In that case you have to switch to some sort of macro lens.<br>

Last winter I tried using a Nikkor 70-300 lens on a D300 to achieve a "macro" shot on a gold bracelet. I found that if I got closer than say 1.5 meter then I could not achieve auto-focus lock on the gold bracelet. But if I backed away just a few inches, the AF worked OK. So there is a minimum focus length to be aware of.<br>

It sounds though like she is zooming all the way in, and her subject is still not filling the viewfinder,even at the len's maximum magnification. In this case, she needs to get closer to her subject, if she can. Or she needs a higher magnification lens (expensive). Or she needs to get an accessory that can be attached to a lens to extends its effective zoom focal length. I think you can by "extension tubes" that fit between the camera and the lens tha will do this. And there are "magnifier filters" that you screen on the front of a lens that will magnify the image 1X, 2X, 3X, 4X, etc. But, negatively, an attachment like this will very slighly degrade the optical quality of the picture, so the picture may not be as sharp and clear as she wants it.<br>

Can you clarify which of these two situations is the case with your friend? Also, can you clarify exactly what model the lens is? A 70-300 lens designed for 35mm frame is going to look different in the D40 viewfinder, compared to a 70-300 designed for digital camera.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>Oops! :)<br>

Not sure what happened, but somehow my comments got posted twice. That last one was not intentional. Pls just ignore it.<br>

cheers..</p>

[bob_flood1]

<p>There's another Nikon 70-300, the cheapie version. I have one that I haven't used since I got the 80-400, but I got it out and tried it. Like all my Nikon autofocus lenses, it will focus a little closer in manual focus than it will using autofocus. Using autofocus, it gets down to about 6 feet, and about a foot closer manually.<br>

6 feet might not be close enough if Mom is standing on, or just about on, the sideline, and then the play comes toward her. For lenses that zoom to 300 and beyond, that's an unmoveable limit. Backing away from thew sideline as the play comes your way is the solution (to the image problem and potential collision issues).<br>

It seems to me that 300 mm on a DX camera should be adequate for images of an individual in most cases unless there's a desire to get a facial portrait as the play goes by (which would create other, more difficult issues).</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>i think the lady wants to zoom in on her son out on the field, and not photograph his pimples... if the lens doesn't bring her close enough to the action from her seat in the stands, her options include moving closer, or purchasing a different lens with a longer focal length -- like the 80-400 someone else mentioned. that is, unless she doesn't know how to work the zoom ring... but that couldn't be, could it?</p>

[thistleandthat]

<p>Thanks for the answers.<br>

Alan, I'm pretty sure the situation is the second one you talked about where she is focusing all the way in at 300mm and still not "filling the screen" with say......just the quarterbacks hands hiking the ball back. i assume that's what she means. I think she thought that she would be able to focus in close like that from further away with the higher mm lens. <br>

And now i'm asking the same thing for myself I guess............getting a higher mm lens just helps you be further away from a subject and be able to focus on it right (like trying to get a shot of a poisonous snake)? like say, you could get the same shot of a rattlesnake at 6 feet away with the 70-300mm that you could at 1.5 feet away with the 28-135? <br>

what kind of lens would you need to fill the screen from further away? </p>

[alan_olander1664878205]

<p>A longer focal length lens has the effect of "bringing the subject closer" like you are describing with the rattlesnake. Some of the lenses you see the professional photographers using on the sidelines are long telephotos, e.g. 400 to 600mm. You are talking serious $$ for those lenses, though. ;) Your friend needs to get closer.</p>

[glenjo]

<p>She got the right lens. Unfortunately to zoom in closer than a 300 requires some expensive glass like a 80-400 zoom, 200-400 zoom or a 400, 500, or 600. The 80-400 is about $1600, the others are serious $$ , require big tripods or monopods and good technique.</p>

<p>I would strongly suggest she try zooming in with her feet as much as possible or check into renting one of the more expensive lenses.</p>

[thistleandthat]

<p>Thanks guys! I appreciate everything. I think she was just being a nervous nellie because she sent me a picture tonight that she took at the game and it looked great to me. even if she did crop it.</p>

[dave wyman]

<p>>even if she did crop it.<</p>

<p>This is the real answer, isn't it, Melanie? There's nothing in the rule book that states a picture can't be cropped, an a D40 can give up plenty of pixel.</p>