80-200 2.8 Poor IQ at 200mm/f/2.8

Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
4,488
Location
Seattle WA, USA
Here's a sample shot from my recently acquired 80-200mm "push/pull" at f/2.8 and 200mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Terrible image quality. Big disappointment.

Here's the same shot stopped down to f/5.6:

View attachment 215924

Noticeably better...but still. I was hoping for a little (a lot actually) better at f/2.8 with this lens.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
6,696
Location
So Fla
something wrong here
my 80-200 2 ring was sharp, sharp at any mm even at 2.8
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
my push/pull is stellar there @2.8 ...looks like u a gotta stinker,,sorry ...;-(
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,475
Location
Lompoc, CA
It's no help to you, but I had pretty much the same thing: The lens was great wide open up to about 150mm, then it went down hill fast. Like yours it was alot better at f/5.6. There is/was some conventional wisdom that the 80-200 push-pull was soft wide open at 200mm and close focus. Eventually I got a 70-200vr and needless to say, it is very nice indeed.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
1,747
Location
San Diego
How close are you to the subject? What was your shutter speed? DOF could be be playing tricks with you too as well.
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
4,488
Location
Seattle WA, USA
Shutter speed was 1/1250''. I was approximately 15' feet away from the flower. Note the halos around the petals in the f/2.8 sample - some kind of aberration?
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
318
Location
Central Ca.
2.8, 200mm, minimum focus distance
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



2.8, 80mm, min focus distance
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)



f4, 200mm, 35 feet focus distance
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
300
Location
Atlanta, GA
When I was looking for a 80-200mm f/2.8 a lot of people said the same regarding the close focus distances. Seems like there's a big difference between copies b/c some seem to be doing just fine.
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
4,488
Location
Seattle WA, USA
Not entirely sure what to think here - just went out and took this:

1/5000", f/2.8, 200mm:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


This is much closer to the kind of results I was hoping to get. Not quite sure what's up with the 1st flower shot above...maybe I was too close it, but, the pop can was photographed at just about the same distance. Probable user error?
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
318
Location
Central Ca.
Focusing at minimum focusing distance yields less than stellar results when at the long end of the zoom range. Fortunate for me, my uses for this lens do not include close focusing at all.
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
4,488
Location
Seattle WA, USA
Here's a shot at f/5.6 just taken outside:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I'm happy with that...and stepping back a bit from the minimum focus distance bumps up the quality of the wide open aperture shots as well.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
1,096
Location
San Jose, Ca
maybe the flower was moving just a bit or the camera mis-focused.

Try another static object (like the soda can) and see what results you get.
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
4,488
Location
Seattle WA, USA
I took a couple dozen shots of the flower in the first circumstance (200mm wide open) and they were all like that.

I think the ticket is to avoid taking any shots wide open at the close focusing minimum.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
1,520
Location
Edgartown, MA
Guys, keep in mind that at 200m and f/2.8, your DOF is very small. At 15 feet your DOF is about 2" (and at f/5.6 it's 4.5"). You don't have a lot of room for error there. At 20 feet you have 4 inches DOF, at 35 feet you have 12 inches DOF.

Notice on that football shot that the front of the football is sharp, but look at the fingers on top, already a bit OOF. If you aren't spot on with your focus, your shots are going to look like something is off.
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
4,488
Location
Seattle WA, USA
That's all true, John. But can you see the weird halos in the first flower shot I posted? There is a very substantial difference between both of those flower shots with the second one being stopped down to f/5.6.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom