180/2.8: Pictures not sharp at infinity...

[michael_bradtke]

<p>If you post process better it can look much better. Bring the brightness down the contrast up and play with the black levels.</p>

<p>And the big question is what did you focus on. If you just let the lens focus on infinity I would say this is not to bad.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Steven, contrast is low, but that's how it is with D800...these are neutral settings with sharpening dialed down. LR somehow takes away the contrast further when you open it there. </p>

<p>Michael: What did you focus on? Well, i don't even know...this was one of those random shots.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>I am in the process of testing out the focus issues: Will report as i get an explanation for what's going on...</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Ok and that is the problem. You dont know what you focused on. In other words you did not focus...Also the D800 does not produce low contrast images. The settings you picked have no bearing on a RAW file. Only on a jpg or the image you view on the back LCD.</p>

<p>I really think the problems you are having are not lens or camera problem. </p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>Anurag, I know the "neutral" tone curve very well, but in your samples I see way more serious issues of lens flare and/or smearing. So: (i) check lens hood, which is mandatory for this lens, (ii) remove any UV filter, and (iii) check that your lens itself is clean and not subject to fungus, which could be expensive to resolve if the internal elements are affected. Anyone who might have stored your lens in plastic bags before you acquired it should be punished; the outgassing of plastics supply contaminants that cloud your optical path, as well as gum up the entire mechanical works.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

Michael,

It was like point and shoot.

But it will be interesting to know where do

you focus a tele lens for landscape, to get

max near and far focus like you do with the

wide angle lenses.

Sometimes you get shots like this, for

example, my shot....

 

Luke, rest assred, its not a lens problem. I

bought it new and everything is great about

it. The low contrast you point out is

because of the scene itself perhaps...the

prevailing conditions. Yes, could be the

hood...

[luke_kaven]

<p>The lens hood will address the flare problem in a noticeable way if the optics are otherwise clean. As for the rest, at 100% magnification on a 36MP camera, even slight changes in focus will be much more noticeable than they are with a 12MP camera. It all depends in the end on how big your print is and how far away the print is viewed. Live view will help you achieve focus where you need it to be.</p>

[scott_murphy5]

<p>If this is an 180mm f/2.8 ED lens you will notice you can focus <em>past</em> infinity, thus your images could be unsharp. This is a quirk of lenses with ED glass.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I focus my lenses on a subject it does not really matter what kind of lens it is. If I am shooting something like the shot you posted in the other thread I would have focused on the red house and used f/8 for enough depth of field. </p>

<p>The shot you posted here was a waist of pixels. The is nothing in it that could be called a subject. You pointed the camera randomly and expected it to produce a sharp image. The person behind the camera should have done a better job and not blamed it on the camera or lens.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>I think it was just a test shot... (boy, this is a tough room...)</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Peter, exactly, this was not even a test shot. When i say it later i thought about focus. </p>

[woolly1]

<p>I spent all of last year in South Korea and frankly if the subject was more than 400 yds away it was completely shrouded in haze from dust, pollen and pollution drifting across from Chinese Beijing.<br>

Your shots across the Himalayan valley reminded me of those conditions. I also spent 18 months in the Norwegian arctic circle and on a clear day had probably the cleanest air on the planet - so much so that you couldn't judge distance. I once surprised myself shooting a mountain range with solid blacks and snow whites only to find on Google maps it was fifty miles away.<br>

Reminds me of 30 years ago I set out from Pokhara to hike to the head of the Jomson trail. I had just watched the dawn sun rise with rays of all colours bouncing off the Annapurna range and thought they were just a short hike away. Turned out they were 40 miles away, and the trailhead was 60 miles!<br>

I think you're asking a lot of the lens and sensor.<br>

See the evaluations of the two 180mm lenses from Bjorn Rorslett's site here ...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a></p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Peter<br>

A test shot would mean that it was used to test something. Pointing a camera randomly and firing it is not a test of anything other then if the camera will make an image. To then wonder about the quality of the lens is not the way to go. Am I being tough sure maybe but I do not like wasting my time or anyone else time for that matter when we are being sent on a wild goose chase. If he had shot something under controlled conditions and had this kind of an issue I would be more then happy to spend days trying to get this figured out. But to do what he did and then want help. Sorry ...He didn't even focus on a subject and wonders why nothing is in focus.......</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Michael...why can't this kind of shot be a test shot for judging focus at infinity?<br>

You're standing on a ridge in front of a valley...you point your camera on something at infinity because everything in front is infinity...camera locked focus otherwise the shot wouldn't be taken...<br>

So here's a shot which has been focussed on infinity, but you don't remember where...so its a well focussed shot actually, wherever the focus could be...<br>

Why can't it be a test shot then...i can still look at the image and see that the central part is sharper than the rest...<br>

The aperture was F8.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>You are being tough... and... I'd go further... A LOT of these questions get posed by people who probably should have realized that they didn't need a 3000-dollar-plus FX camera... A d7000 would have been fine.</p>

<p>That said, I hope we can help Anurag out a bit, at least constructing a more reasonable test.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>"A LOT of these questions get posed by people who probably should have realized that they didn't need a 3000-dollar-plus FX camera... "<br>

Peter, not in my case. i deserve this camera.<br>

If you have based that judgment on my lack of knowledge of gear testing procedure...may be you're being harsh. A person without any knowledge of this kind can be a decent photographer, and a person with all the knowledge, can never take one half decent picture. I think i made it clear in the beginning that i lack the knowledge. <br>

All i am doing is, i'm figuring out the new equipment that i've bought. </p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I'm certainly not saying that you don't deserve the camera, Anurag.</p>

<p>But if we might extrapolate from your testing procedures, might it not be true that a D7000 or 7100 might actually give you, with the appropriate lenses, the exact same quality you're getting from your D800 for your particular use and purpose?</p>

<p>If I can afford to go FX at some point, I will, but I don't think the quality of my photography is going to improve a whole heck of a lot... Will I enjoy it much? Sure. Will I deserve it? Perhaps? Will some things be easier (like using older cool MF lenses the way they're designed to be used)? Yup.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>"I do not like wasting my time or anyone else time for that matter when we are being sent on a wild goose chase. "<br>

Its up to people to reply. If someone feels they are wasting their time, they shouldn't chip in. As for others' time, i don't think everyone replied because they wanted to waste their time. <br>

I did benefit from the contributions that were made. </p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Peter, <br>

How can my testing procedures possibly tell someone what camera i actually need..? It can only tell someone that ok, my concepts are not clear. </p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Anurag,</p>

<p>I didn't tell you what you "need". I only pointed out that it may be possible that you will get the same quality photos, for your purpose, with your D800 as you would have with a D7000 and DX lenses.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with "over-buying" for your hobbies/passions/interests. I do that with musical gear for instance.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>No problem, Peter<br>

Thanks,</p>

 

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Peter<br>

I have no problem with people asking basic questions, In fact I answer the same basic questions over and over every day. The problem I have is being sent on a wild goose chase for an image that was randomly shot and not even focused. Then to ask us is it normal for this lens to be this soft? Well yes it is normal for that lens to be that soft if it is not focused. In fact if you use the correct post production on it it can be made to look acceptably sharp.<br>

If you read my original posts in this thread I was more then willing to help work through the problem..</p>

<p>And this being on-line has no bearing on the way I have responded. Be more then happy to tell the OP the same face to face. I would also sit him down have talk about how to actually test...</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Michael, <br>

I put the images back in the card to check focus with the help of red square...well, in the said image, the two green huts behind the car...that's where the camera focussed. But in the pine tree shot, its dead in the center. <br>

I thought the car shot was in pretty much in focus...the distance was maybe a few miles but the air was relatively clear...But in the flat pine tree shot looks soft...it was snowing up there, and distance was great (maybe 20 miles)...so i reckon what you and others said about haze/pollen etc. should be the cause...<br>

I further tested the "far" distances and the focus seems fine. I couldn't test the extreme far like above because i couldn't get such a place....<br>

Thanks,</p>

 

[stefan_g]

<p>So, two weeks later, did you ever get around to produce a picture of a target, from a tripod, as I suggested? Shooting across valleys is not going to answer the question whether there is a problem with your camera or your lens.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

<p>Hi Stefan,<br>

No, i haven't been able to do that...hope to do this some time soon. <br>

I have shot more with the lens, and my feeling is that the environmental conditions were responsible for the hazy shot. <br>

I have been successful in getting sharp images at long distances...not that long, but lets say within what you would call infinity. <br>

On the other hand, focus at near MFD is little iffy...i get one sharp shot out of many. <br>

The best focus i can consistently get is from about 20 feet, wide open, each time. </p>