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

Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
1,593
Location
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
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


100% CROP
DSC_0061crop.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


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:
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
1,593
Location
Franklin MA US
Another example

Resized
DSC_0053.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


100% CROP
DSC_0053_100.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


f/5.6 1/80 ISO 200
 
T

Tim White

Guest
What exactly is the problem?
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
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.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
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.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
29,616
Location
Moscow, Idaho
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.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
1,593
Location
Franklin MA US
First one not sharp, second one sharp. You need to test it on a tripod at ISO 100 to be sure though.

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.

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.

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...
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
2,547
Location
Denmark
This lens was actually focus adjusted (and SWM replaced) if that is what you mean...



That is exactly what I thought!!!


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.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,958
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
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.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
928
Location
Amstelveen, the Netherlands
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.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
1,593
Location
Franklin MA US
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.

No in-camera noise reduction either...I shoot RAW anyways..
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
549
Location
boston, ma, USA
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
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
538
Location
Belgium
Mine is definitely sharper at base ISO. I'd suggest to take a few shots in good light
 

Latest threads

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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom