NIkon 200-400 VR2 issue

[lech_aleksandrowicz]

<p>Hi all,<br /> I have recently purchased the 200-400 VRII Nikon lens. During the first weeks of my testing I have encountered issues for which I would appreciate to get your opinion.<br /> I mainly shoot wildlife and would describe myself as an advanced amateur, with this lens being my first one of professional quality.<br /> I noticed that when shooting objects further away than 5 or 10 meters the image starts to get soft and noticeably blurred, even compared to my old 70-300 lens. I did test on a tripod, with >1/1000, VR switched off and with still or slow moving subjects – with consistently bad results over 5 or 10 meters.<br /> My camera is Nikon D90.<br /> <br /> I am not sure whether the problem is my technique, fine tuning or an issue with my lens copy.<br /> <br /> I believe that I am aware of the “normal” limitations of the lens – I know that it tends to get softer when shooting distant subjects (>30 meters). However, I do expect the lens to be capable of producing sharp images of objects 10-15 meters away.<br /> <br /> I would appreciate any feedback regarding the issue.<br /> Has someone experienced similar problems?<br /> Do I need to fine tune something?<br /> Is there a way for me to reasonably test the performance of my lens copy?<br /> Could it be a technical defect?<br /> <br /> Thanks!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Lech, I cannot help as I have zero experience with this lens - but maybe it would help to describe your tripod (and head), and weather conditions (thermal haze is in summer obviously more of an issue - I am currently seeing it in many photos, even at wide angles).</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Lech, it would alo be helpfull if u could share one or two images , so we can see what i sgoing on...</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I could be a focus issue; you could try a camera which supports AF fine tuning to see if that helps. Another thing is the size of the subject; are you cropping a lot, or shooting so that your subject fills the frame?</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Try a shot using conventional AF and then a shot using zoomed LV AF, if the latter shot is soft too, it's <em>not</em> a fine tune issue.</p>

<p>Maybe try this for 200, 300 and 400mm.</p>

[lech_aleksandrowicz]

<p>Thanks for the tips regarding testing manual focus - will try it out and report the results.<br>

My tripod: Manfrotto 190CXPRO3<br>

My head: 496RC2<br>

Weather conditions: Sydney winter, 15-20 C.</p>

<p>I have also uploaded some sample fotos.<br>

All are done with D90+20-400 VRII, 400mm, f4, auto focus. All are 100% zoom.<br>

1) Distance: ca. 5 meters. Focus on head.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17822816-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="382" /></p>

<p>2) Distance: ca. 10 meters. Object was not moving (took several shots after this one with exactly the same head position). No tripod, 1/2000sek. It is the sharpest out of ca. 20 images of the series.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17822817-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="392" /></p>

<p>3) Distance: ca. 15 meters. Tripod, VR off, remote release. Focus on plants.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17822818-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="419" /></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm confused that distance is a factor, but the middle shot at least does seem to be more vibration than anything - some of the edges seem sharper than others, which would normally suggest motion. Was VR on?<br />

<br />

I'd be nervous about a 190CXPro with a 200-400. I can't say for sure that it's not enough, but I have a 055CXPro and I certainly don't feel it's overkill for my 200 f/2. My 500 f/4 was the reason I gave up on my 055 and got a TVC-34L. That said, at 1/2000 it's hard to see how it can have been an issue.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Manfrotto 496RC2 seems a bit (well, way too) marginal for a lens this size and weight - claimed safety load: 6kg, that should be read as: everything perfectly level. Under angle, this weight rating drops significantly. In short, the ballhead is not up to this job.<br>

Overall, tripod is on the light side, and it could be vibrations indeed, but as Andrew said: confusing that distance would play a role then. So I doubt it is the explanation for this issue (and hence follow the advice of Ilkka and Mike adviced). The last one just looks too soft to me, but not because of movement.</p>

<p>Anyway, just an unasked $0,02: I think you should consider a heavier tripod and a wimberley-style head for this lens (regardless of this issue).</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>OK, if this is at 400mm wide open, the DOF varies between 2cm and 20 cm over the pictures so exact focussing is crtitical in these examples.<br>

I cannot check from here but could you indicate whether you were using the central focus point or multple focus points ? ( you can review this in VIEW NX2 or Capture NX2) because it is a bit hard to see where exactly you were focussing on.<br>

You could also try to stop down one or two stops, giving you a better DOF for this kind of subjects, and test on realy stionary objects ( plants move in the wind, birds move by themselves...) .</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>This is not normal for this lens. My copy is sharp at 400mm wide open. Yours should be too.</p>

<p>Did you buy the lens new or used?</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Agree with Wouter and Andrew - tripod and ball head are marginal for that lens (I wouldn't even consider the 055 to be sufficient) - but also confused why distance would play a role. So more likely an AF issue - try manual focus and LV focus as suggested above.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>At 1/2000, I would not be so concerned with the tripod. You can get quality images from that lens hand held at that speed.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Elliot, none of us is saying this issue would be caused by the tripod, only that the tripod doesn't make the best possible choice for this lens. Two different things.</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>Could you upload full size, untouched images? There is no exif info so it is a bit hard to look for anything there. Also, the images are severely compressed. The first one is 26kB.</p>

[juha_liimatainen]

<p>I believe, there´s nothing wrong with your lens. I´ve been shooting with 200-400/4 VR I since 2005, with several bodies: D2x, D3, D700, D4 and D4s. VR II version is optically identical with VR I version which seems to have a strong back focus tendency, especially at long distance shooting. I´ve used -17 AF fine tuning with D3, D4 and D4s and the lens is very sharp. But you must remember to switch off the fine tuning when shooting at short distance because just as you mentioned, there´s no back focus issue when you´re close to your subject. VR must also be switched off with shutter speeds faster than 1/500 sec. Unfortunately D90 has no AF fine tuning.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If there is systematic distance-dependent focus offset, take the lens and the camera to service; an authorized repair center should be able to fix the problem.</p>

[lech_aleksandrowicz]

<p>Thanks to all for the replies and suggestions.<br>

Based on the feedback my next steps will be:<br>

1) Try MF instead of AF and compare the results.<br>

2) Test the camera on a different body (ideally with AF fine tuning).</p>

<p>I have uploaded the images again in full size and unmodified:<br>

1) http://www.photo.net/photo/17823486<br>

2) http://www.photo.net/photo/17823484<br>

3) http://www.photo.net/photo/17822818</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

 

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Lech, don't forget to try Live View AF. It takes the human element out of the equation..:-)</p>

<p>Make sure to use a high contrast target such as sharp newsprint or maybe invest in a purpose made device.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have version 1 of the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, which is optically identical to version 2, but version 1 does not have nano coating.</p>

<p>On the following thread last year, I posted samples for both near-by subjects as well as distant subjects. The body I used was the D7000, whose 16MP is more demanding than the 12MP D90 the OP uses here: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bDf5</p>

<p>Now the the OP has an excellent lens, it is time to upgrade the camera body and tripod to match it. The Multi-CAM 1000 AF module in the D90 is not going to work very well for wildlife photography.</p>

[lech_aleksandrowicz]

<p>Dear all,<br>

I performed a series of testing an am unfortunately experiencing the same results.<br />The testing I performed:<br />1) I hired a new camera Nikon D7100 and did the below testing with it.<br />2) I checked AF of my D90 and the hired D7100 and it focused exactly on the spot I targeted (in the linked image I focused on "30").<br /><a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> />3) I shot different still, contrast rich subjects over a distance of 10-20 meters (400mm, f4) in the following methods:<br />3.1) On a tripod, VR off, timer release (10 sec), shutter spead between 1/3000 and 1/40 – AF<br />3.2) As 3.1) but MF (using live view)<br />3.3) As 3.1) but AF with live view<br />4) Handholded, VR on with high shutter speed.<br />Below are some example shots (best ones for the respective subjects).<br />Full: <a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> />Closeup: <a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">

Full: <a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> />Closeup: <a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">

Full: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/125709439@N06/14769732886/in/photostream/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.flickr.com/photos/125709439@N06/14769732886/in/photostream/</a><br />Closeup: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/125709439@N06/14812604513/in/photostream/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.flickr.com/photos/125709439@N06/14812604513/in/photostream/</a><br>

The results were consistent. All shots over ca. 10 meters were not really sharp. And I am not expecting prime quality but at least a decent sharpness.<br>

I am out of ideas at the moment except for assuming a technical defect. I guess I will need to contact Nikon repair service unless someone has an idea.<br>

Thanks</p>