24-120 Vr

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by kirchnel, Jul 24, 2007.

  1. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    :confused:I purchased this lens a few months ago and because it is not that fast, I have use it mostly outdoors. I just can't figure out why the pictures I shoot seem "soft". I tried stopping down (?) -- never sure when they say stop down whether it refers to the numbers decreasing or the actual aperature decreasing . . . anyway I stopped down to 7.5 (since they say stop down two f stops from the widest aperature to sharpen but still not that hot.

    Any clues?

    I shoot A mode on my D80. Is this just this lens. It is sharper at 24 . . .:confused:
     
  2. 24-120 is known to be soft, its not one of nikons finest to say the least.

    That doesnt rule out the possebility that your camer/lens isnt properly calibrated.

    If you live near a Nikon service center, i would just let them have it checked.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 24, 2007
  3. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    i think it's the lens, because there are a lot of people who are complaining about it.
     
  4. Post an image here too for us to see. I find my D200 needs a bit of sharpening, they are not pin sharp out of the camera but sharpen up well in post processing.
     
  5. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    thanks for the feedback. I really wanted to try the VR (it is my only lens that has it). Didn't realize it was known to be "soft". Think my camera is calibrated okay as my other lenses seem to do a better job. I guess I was expecting more from the VR.
     
  6. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    I will be posting a picture at some point. Right now working on trying to get the web up from my cable company and then have to change from raw into jpeg. As soon as I can, I will.
     
  7. Mine was stunningly sharp at f8 and f11 end to end but, otherwise, disappointing.
     
  8. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    I'll give the f8 and f11 a try as it would be nice to use.
     
  9. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    Here are some photos. The sharpest one is the scenery and then the portrait shot. Critiques???[​IMG]
     
  10. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    whoops, i did this wrong above. Here are the links:
    [​IMG]
    I think that one is the sharpest and
    [​IMG]
     
  11. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    seems like there is a noise issue. you used ISO1600...
     
  12. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    ISO 1600 on the portrait and 1400 on the heron. It is set on auto as advised by Ken rockwell.
     
  13. Here are a couple of shots with a 24-120vr (at f4.5, I believe) - soft, I don't think so.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  14. kirchnel

    kirchnel

    306
    Jan 29, 2007
    Northern NJ
    So, Ray,
    what is your secret -- that is the clarity I was seeking . . .


    [​IMG]
     
  15. photoshooter

    photoshooter Guest

    I have used a 24-120 to do portraits, nothing soft about any of them.

    The 24-120 just like any other lens, is only as good as the user.

    Maybe your settings or technique, need to be looked at. Are you shooting at 1600 ISo, that will cause any lens camera combe to have some softness.

    Send the lens to melville, they will check it out.
     
  16. The secret is that you have used iso 1400/1600 wich will make your shots look quite bad.
     
  17. Hi Lynda,

    I have to agree with my fellow Swede Paul - you've used very high ISO & gotten what is to be the expected result - - noise. It can be corrected with Noise Ninja or Noiseware which you can download on the Internet.

    Stop using such high ISO. BTW, Ken Rockwell should not recommend using high ISO on your D80. If you wish to shoot high ISO you really need to use a noise removal software.

    Also, this is a lens which likes f/stops around f/8 - f/11 - - - still my advice is - - - stop listening to Ken Rockwell.

    I have a question for you. Did you ever buy film for a film camera? If you did - what was the highest ASA you ever bought?

    Something tells me you didn't go out & buy ASA 1600 for shooting in daylight.

    Now, go out & shoot some shots in daylight at maybe 200 ISO or so, at f/8-f/11 & we'll see what the lens produces. AUTO ISO is not a good idea.

    ISO 1600 will not look good without noise cleanup on a D80.

    I own this lens & though I'd admit it's slightly soft, I have not ever seen your result out of it & have some lovely shots I've taken with it.

    JMHO

    Lil
     
  18. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Hey Lynda,

    Actually the 24-120vr is a very good lens, perfect for the web-based commercial work I do. Take a look at this site for instance, I shot all the photos on it with that lens. I've got a few more examples if you'd like to see them.

    When I first got the 24-120vr, I thought, like a lot of people, "Darn! This lens is soft!" But then I learned a couple things about it. First, realize that it is not a fast lens, and so it does not stop action in dim light. If you are shooting people, they will still be moving enough to blur your photos at 1/10th of a second, even though the VR should be able to steady the image for that long. Give the lens enough light to work at the shutter speed you need to stop subject motion.

    Secondly, and this is probably why folks thought it was soft, the VR mechanism takes half a second or so to actuate. It is moving the elements inside the lens until that happens. And that motion makes the picture blurry! So, I press the button halfway, and wait half a second until pushing it in the rest of the way to make the picture. When I do that, I get nice, sharp stuff like this:
    [​IMG]
     
  19. I personally prefer the NON VR version that produces this kind of portraits...
    Nikon D100 | Nikkor 24-120mm | 1/80 | f/8 | @78mm
    original.
     
  20. Chris did you treat that image with noise removal ?

    what aperture did you use ?

    Reason im asking is that its not looking that sharp to me.In fact the whole image lacks detail and sharpness. The diffrence is detail from top to bottom is huge. And the borders are very mushy.

    Not trying to put the lens down or your photo, but your image dosent really make a good example regarding sharpness. imo.

    Or is it simply your intended look, that you did in pp ?
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Nikon 300mm f/2.8 VR - First Impressions Lens Lust Sunday at 7:58 PM
Nikon 200-500mm VR question Lens Lust Dec 5, 2017
Sports Lens: 200-500 f/5.6 or 300/2.8 VR I Lens Lust Dec 4, 2017
AF-S 300/4D vs 80-400 VR II Lens Lust Nov 29, 2017
A (VERY) Non Tech Background Comparison of the 200-500 VR Lens Lust Nov 5, 2017