jrichardson

<p>Thanks for the links, all.</p>

<p>I just want clarification on one thing. The reason I'm asking is that I want more of a good portrait lens than what I have. I have a D90 and the 17-55 DX and 18-105 DX lenses. Will the Nikon 24-70 FX lens produce the same image in the viewfinder on my D90 at 35mm that my 17-55 lens produces set at 35mm? Will the 24-70 produce the same image in my viewfinder set at 70mm as my 18-105 lens produces at 70mm? I'm taking in regards to framing and magnification, not DOF, color rendetion, etc.</p>

<p>I don't think my 17-55mm is long enough for protraits at 55mm, and I would like a larger aperture then what my 18-105 provides. Although if the answers to my above questions are "yes", then I'm not sure 70mm is enough, either on the 24-70. I tend to stay above 70mm on my 18-105 when I am taking portrait-type pictures. All the confusion on my part led me to believe that the 24-70 would reach out to ~105 like my 18-105 lens does.</p>

<p>I read the link that William provided, and this is what I don't understand. Maybe I am mixing up words and saying the wrong thing. Quote from article above regarding using a FX lens on a DX camera:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The image circle produced by the lens is larger than the sensor area, therefore the field of view is cropped and the image appears magnified. This means that the lens has an apparent focal length magnification of 1.5 times the quoted figure, the actual focal length of the lens has not changed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds like that is saying that even though the lens is at a certain focal length, it appears as though it is not. It appears 1.5 times bigger. That's why I keep thinking that FX lens at 70 would produce the same framed image as a DX lens at 105.</p>

<p>I don't have any experience with this, so I am trying to learn. Sorry for all the questions.</p>

<p>Okay, thanks for the clarification. Everytime I read about a FX lens on a DX, people always mention the other numbers (ex 24-70 roughly = 35-105). I just didn't understand why I should care. I'm not an FX shooter, so I guess I should disregard those statements. Thanks again.</p>

<p>Can someone answer this, please? There are DX and FX lenses. If I have a DX body and a DX lens, say the 18-105, I actually get 18-105. But if I put a FX lens on there, like the 24-70, that is different than using a 24-70 if it were built for a DX camera, right? Putting the Nikon 24-70 on a DX body is really like putting a ~35-105 DX lens on it, right? So the 70mm on the current FX 24-70 lens would frame up exactly like the 18-105 DX lens at 105mm. Is that correct?</p>

<p>Jay, I recently went through similar problems with my D90. I am a fairly new DSLR user also. First of all, I suggest you listen to what people are saying on here, as it helped me greatly. Try all the advice you get, if for nothing else than to learn about your camera.</p>

<p>Secondly, don't think it is NOT the camera. Plenty of people here kept telling me my pictures were blurry because of something I was doing wrong. I came from a D80 with no focus problems. Then all of a sudden, a new camera is thrown in the mix with the same old lenses, and pictures turn out blurry. Did your D40 have problems?</p>

<p>In the end, my thoughts were correct from the beginning. The camera had a problem. I sent it to Nikon with 2 of my lenses, and they are repairing the camera. I should be getting it back any day now. I'm not saying that your camera needs to be fixed, but it is a possibility.</p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

 

<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>

<p>So I guess there is no concensus as to the what the problem is. Some say out of focus, some say shutter speed is too slow (camera shake), some say camera and/or lens is broken, some are asking questions that have already been answered, so if I answered them again, I'm not sure anyone would notice.</p>

<p>People mention that the light was probably too low. Isn't that one of the selling points of getting a pro-level 2.8 aperture lens? The low-light performance? I had the sun shining almost directly in the window at 5pm. The auto-focus snapped into place instantly on all my pictures. No hunting involved like a very low-light picture would include.</p>

<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. My ~6 year-old Canon G3 point-and-shoot takes far fewer blurry pictures than the D90/17-55 combo. I guess I'll have to either learn to live with it, or sent the camera and lens to Nikon to see if there is a problem. Thanks for all the suggestions.</p>

 

<p>The lens in question does not have VR.</p>

<p>Walter, I don't think I've ever gotten an image that sharp with mine.</p>

<p>Bela, I was the one who said that, not Nicholas. I believe you misread my statement. Wide open, I know that things will be out of focus. I am fairly new to this, so maybe I am the one who is misunderstanding you. But I know that a big aperture gives a shallow DOF.</p>

<p>I have been shooting with single point focusing centered.</p>

<p>What are you referring to with focus priority? I looked all through the camera menu and didn't see anything about it.</p>

<p>Nicholas, did you try shots on a tripod? I did, and it didn't seem to make much of a difference. I just got this lens a couple of weeks ago. I want to love it, but I have much better results with my 18-105mm and 50mm 1.4 lenses. </p>

<p>I shot in AF-S. No manual override or fine tuning by me. All my pictures look in focus when I take them. Of course, seeing something in focus in the viewfinder doesn't always translate into an in-focus picture on the screen when you blow it up. I don't see how people can manual focus. I can turn the focus ring very slightly one way or the other and not notice a difference in the viewfinder. My eye sight was 20/40 last time I had it tested.</p>

<p>Michael, I have tried focusing on everything. The focus always snaps into place immediately like it has a sharp focus lock. When I try to focus on something less contrasty, like a wall, it will hunt and never find a focus point (understandably). Can recomposing from a front-on shot where the new center is on the same plane only inches from the original point (between eyes to upper cheek) really matter that much? I was probably 6 feet away while taking these pictures. The aperture of 3.5 for this picture (I think) should give me enough DOF for the whole face to be in focus.</p>

<p>Peter, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I'm new to DSLRs. I'm not sure what shutter speed has to do with sharpness, other than camera shake. What is mirror slap?</p>

<p>Thanks for the ideas.</p>

<p>Sorry for the double post. I forgot to say that this is the best example I had. All the other pics that were more blurry than this I already deleted.</p>

<p>I hope this is correct. I had to read up on 100% crops, as I didn't know what that meant. Here is a picture. I used auto focus, aimed between the eyes, then slightly recomposed the photo. The center of the picture was on his right cheek.</p><div></div>

<p>I hope this is correct. I had to read up on 100% crops, as I didn't know what that meant. Here is a picture. I used auto focus, aimed between the eyes, then slightly recomposed the photo. The center of the picture was on his right cheek.</p>

<p>I have the same problem. I just took about 400 pictures of my kids today for their 9 month pictures using a D90 and the 17-55. Almost half of them came out blurry. Nothing in the photo was in focus.<br>

Earlier this week I took probably 30 pictures of the inside of a house that was flooded. D90 and 17-55, most of the time at 2.8. I was photographing entire rooms, so I know that everything wouldn't be in focus. There are plenty of those pictures where nothing in the room is in focus. I came home that night and put the camera on a tripod and took a bunch of pictures. I had the same problem, even using smaller apertures.<br>

I have no idea what the problem is. I feel like I might be doing something wrong, like introducing camera shake, but I got the same results on a tripod.</p>

<p>Okay, thanks for all the responses. I have not tried printing anything yet. I guess it is some combination of my software and monitor, as I do not see the problem on my work laptop.</p>

<p>Stephen, are you suggesting WB on the monitor or the camera?<br>

Pics are taken under regular incandescent lighting.<br>

Funny thing is, now I am seeing this picture on a different computer, and it isn't noticable. But all my D80 pictures were viewed on the same computer and monitor that I see the green D90 pictures. No green on any of the D80 pictures.<br>

I figured this was a bad example due to the color of the toys. I have plenty of other pictures away from colors that show the same tint on the faces. Now that I don't see it on this computer, I assume it is something on the other computer or monitor. But why only the D90 pictures and not the D80 pictures?</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I just got a new D90. Had a D80 before with no problems. I have found that most of the pictures I take of my children have a green tint to the faces area, noticable where there might be shadows. I am using the SB600 bounced off the ceiling, and have tried 3 different Nikon lenses: 17-55, 18-105, and 50 1.4. For test purposes, I set the camera to auto, set all lenses to 50mm, and took 3 pictures. All 3 show a greenish/yellow tint in the face area.<br>

I never had this problem with my D80. Any ideas on how to fix this? I cannot return the camera, as I have over the maximum allowed shutter activations for a return.<br>

Thanks.</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you all for your help. I will try what other tests I can tomorrow. I don't have access to another body or lens right now. I will say that while I was borrowing the camera, I had 2 other lenses (that I did not buy): a 18-200 made by Quantaray (sp?) and a 24-80 (I think) Tokina 2.8. I never did any tests like this when I was borrowing the camera, but I never had any pictures turn out underexposed like I have with the new 18-105 lens. The friend moved to Canon, so she sold her other lenses that I didn't buy.<br>

Unfortunately, based on B&H's website, I don't think I can return the lens for another one. I filled out my warranty card already (since it said I had to do so within 7 days of purchase), and it looks like I need a blank one for the lens to be able to send it back. I meant to call B&H today, but forgot. Now they are closed for a week or 2. I like the lens, so I guess if, after further testing, it looks to be the lens, I will call Nikon and see what they will do.</p>

<p>Mr Freeman,<br>

I took 2 pictures of a blank wall in aperture mode. Aperture 5.6 for both, ISO 400 for both, no flash, 50mm for both (actually the variable zoom lens shows 52mm, so I was a tad offwhen I zoomed in). Same results. The variable zoom lens picture is darker.<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.burrowspestcontrol.com/jason/DSC_0252.JPG" target="_blank">http://www.burrowspestcontrol.com/jason/DSC_0252.JPG</a><br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.burrowspestcontrol.com/jason/DSC_0253.JPG" target="_blank">http://www.burrowspestcontrol.com/jason/DSC_0253.JPG</a></p>