Help! Nikon 17-35mm am I expecting too much? - Update:New Pictures added

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by smodak, Aug 8, 2008.

  1. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    Recently purchased this lens from ebay for a reasonable price in brand new condition. Nikon recently replaced the SWM motor and adjusted the focus (seller included receipt for that).

    Even though the color and contrast look great, I am not finding the lens to be sharp enough..

    I know it it is not a portrait lens but the below snapshot should illustrate it ...
    f/5.6 1/100s ISO 2000. No NR. No Sharpening in Camera, 50/5/4 USM added in Capture NX2. The focus reticule was on her rihght eye...

    Resized.
    DSC_0061copy.jpg

    100% CROP
    DSC_0061crop.jpg

    I know I have only tried the lens under sub optimal conditions so far but is that how it is supposed to perform? My beast and the 17-55 DX are much sharper while the 12-24 is kinda like this.

    I will try some landscapes later...I will also try the D700 focus adjustments...

    Any ideas?? Suggestions???

    UPDATE:New Pictures Added Here
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  2. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    Another example

    Resized
    DSC_0053.jpg

    100% CROP
    DSC_0053_100.jpg

    f/5.6 1/80 ISO 200
     
  3. Tim White

    Tim White Guest

    What exactly is the problem?
     
  4. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    Pictures do not look as sharp as I thought they would...
     
  5. lr0868

    lr0868

    May 25, 2008
    henderson, nv
    they look pretty sharp to me?
     
  6. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    Cool. I am relieved. May be I am dreaming. I need to get some sleep ;)

    Thanks guys!
     
  7. Sleep. Look at them again. I think they're plenty sharp.
     
  8. cotdt

    cotdt

    Jul 14, 2007
    Bay Area, USA
    They look sharp enough to me. The 35mm end isn't razor sharp, though. If you took those on the wide end of the 17-35, you should expect maximum sharpness.
     
  9. Steinar

    Steinar

    Aug 16, 2007
    Denmark
    I think they are OK-sharp, but not totally "whining" tack sharp.

    I have had a used 17-35 lens on a 14 days trial and tryed it against my 18-200 - only minor more sharpness from the 17-35 at some f-stops - at the same time it has the sound from the motor, that I was not happy what could turn out to be, so I did not ask for keeping it.

    But I have read some places at the net, that some got it calibrated and after that got a tack sharp lens.

    And it has some very good manners in the flare/ghosting area - better than the Nikon 14-24 and backlighting is very fine, so for scapes it is a very fine lens, and I believe also for night-shooting with city-lights without problems.
     
  10. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    This lens was actually focus adjusted (and SWM replaced) if that is what you mean...

    That is exactly what I thought!!!
     
  11. First one not sharp, second one sharp. You need to test it on a tripod at ISO 100 to be sure though.
     
  12. They look fine to me. EXIF shows that the first was shot at ISO 2000 and the second at a shutter speed of 1/80. Lowering the first to say 100 or 200 and the second to say 1/250 will help sharpness.
     
  13. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    The first one was at 32mm and the second one was at 17mm..may be that explains it.

    I will try on a tripod with lower iso ...

    Problem is I get plenty sharpness from my 28-70 or 17-55 (on DX) without the tripod though I have not done any side by side comparison...
     
  14. Steinar

    Steinar

    Aug 16, 2007
    Denmark

    I can not explain what they do technically, but I bough a Nikon 12-24, and I was not satiesfied with the sharpness, so instead of sending it back I went to the Nikon-repair shop in Denmark, and they calibrated both the lens and my camera (D200) together and that helped a lot - I got an OK-sharp lens - I do not think it could be sharper. The 12-24 is not the sharpest lens in the world, except for 24mm, but it was really OK.

    But you have the fine-tune opportunity, maybe it is the same, because the lens is calibrated, as I understand you.
     
  15. Probably you have way sharper lenses but it can be also a sample variation. A bit less on one side, a bit more on the other.
     
  16. As has already been mentioned, the first shot was taken at iso 2000. You mention no NR, but were you using any in-camera noise reduction? I have found most noise reduction algorithms do tend to soften the images somewhat. Try on a lower iso. The second shot looks fine.
     
  17. both look good to me, i recently bought this lens as well, its fantastic!

    shing
     
  18. smodak

    smodak

    Jun 11, 2007
    Franklin MA US
    No in-camera noise reduction either...I shoot RAW anyways..
     
  19. try tripod, flat test target, time release or external shutter release, process using some unsharp mask sharpening...

    the lens is remarkably flare resistent also... i sold my sample for a 14-24/2.8G, but wish i had it sometimes..

    88300223.gif
     
  20. Frank207be

    Frank207be

    538
    Mar 11, 2006
    Belgium
    Mine is definitely sharper at base ISO. I'd suggest to take a few shots in good light