Disappointed at the Nikkor 85mm f1.4/G

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Dec 13, 2012.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon, supposedly a
    high-end lens with their new "Nano Crystal Coat" and rounded blades
    for superb bokeh. I've used it in a studio setting where bokeh is of
    no issue, and I've been fairly disappointed by it in terms of
    sharpness. My last shoot was of kids, so I used a smaller aperture
    (f5.6) in order to lengthen the focus length in order to handle moving
    subjects and still be able to get enough in focus. Here are some pics
    to compare them (click to enlarge):

    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196148.jpg>

    As you can see, the 85mm isn't very sharp. And it wasn't just this
    shot, the majority of images were poorly focused, some worse, some
    better. This shot is representative of the overall focusing result
    though.

    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196147.jpg>

    My favorite lens, the 50mm 1.4/G which, as you can see, is a lot
    sharper. Pretty big difference from the 85mm

    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196146.jpg>

    But the clear studio winner here is the Sigma 28mm f1.8, which
    incidentally is the cheapest of the three. Superb sharpness and speed.

    Note that the aperture is the same for each lens, and the 85mm even
    has a lower ISO than the other two, yet still has poorer sharpness.

    I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?

    --
    Sandman[.net]
    http://jonaseklundh.se
     
    Sandman, Dec 13, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    dbd Guest

    On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:09:58 AM UTC-8, Sandman wrote:
    > So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon,
    >

    ....
    >
    > I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?
    >
    > Sandman[.net]


    In the US the 85mm 1.4G retails new for about 1500 dollars. If you paid 500dollars, that might be a reason for your results.

    I assume that the edited images correctly represent the original pictures content.

    The 85mm image has no region of really sharp focus and no content at great enough distance to show the back side of the depth of field. There is no way to tell from the image whether the lens is bad or the picture is focused incorrectly.

    If you want the depth of field to remain constant you must keep both F-ratio and image size constant. You didn't in the 50mm image so depth of field changed.

    The 28mm image has a region in focus and portions out of focus due to limited depth of field. This is a good subject for making comparison. Too bad neither of the other images are comparable.

    If you reshoot with constant image size, remember that the longer lens has tougher mounting requirements: a smaller unintentional rotation during exposure will produce the same number of pixels of blur as for a shorter lens. (I don't suggest that this is the problem with the original 85mm image.)

    Dale B. Dalrymple
     
    dbd, Dec 13, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Peter Jason Guest

    On 13 Dec 2012 12:09:58 GMT, Sandman
    <> wrote:

    >So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon, supposedly a
    >high-end lens with their new "Nano Crystal Coat" and rounded blades
    >for superb bokeh. I've used it in a studio setting where bokeh is of
    >no issue, and I've been fairly disappointed by it in terms of
    >sharpness. My last shoot was of kids, so I used a smaller aperture
    >(f5.6) in order to lengthen the focus length in order to handle moving
    >subjects and still be able to get enough in focus. Here are some pics
    >to compare them (click to enlarge):
    >
    ><http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196148.jpg>
    >
    >As you can see, the 85mm isn't very sharp. And it wasn't just this
    >shot, the majority of images were poorly focused, some worse, some
    >better. This shot is representative of the overall focusing result
    >though.
    >
    ><http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196147.jpg>
    >
    >My favorite lens, the 50mm 1.4/G which, as you can see, is a lot
    >sharper. Pretty big difference from the 85mm
    >
    ><http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196146.jpg>
    >
    >But the clear studio winner here is the Sigma 28mm f1.8, which
    >incidentally is the cheapest of the three. Superb sharpness and speed.
    >
    >Note that the aperture is the same for each lens, and the 85mm even
    >has a lower ISO than the other two, yet still has poorer sharpness.
    >
    >I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?


    I always get sharper focus when I use a flash
    assist. The sensor seems to love the actinic
    light. So does the lens.

    Try this next.


    Peter
     
    Peter Jason, Dec 13, 2012
    #3
  4. Sandman

    otter Guest

    On Dec 13, 6:09 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon, supposedly a
    > high-end lens with their new "Nano Crystal Coat" and rounded blades
    > for superb bokeh. I've used it in a studio setting where bokeh is of
    > no issue, and I've been fairly disappointed by it in terms of
    > sharpness. My last shoot was of kids, so I used a smaller aperture
    > (f5.6) in order to lengthen the focus length in order to handle moving
    > subjects and still be able to get enough in focus. Here are some pics
    > to compare them (click to enlarge):
    >
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196148.jpg>
    >
    > As you can see, the 85mm isn't very sharp. And it wasn't just this
    > shot, the majority of images were poorly focused, some worse, some
    > better. This shot is representative of the overall focusing result
    > though.
    >
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196147.jpg>
    >
    > My favorite lens, the 50mm 1.4/G which, as you can see, is a lot
    > sharper. Pretty big difference from the 85mm
    >
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196146.jpg>
    >
    > But the clear studio winner here is the Sigma 28mm f1.8, which
    > incidentally is the cheapest of the three. Superb sharpness and speed.
    >
    > Note that the aperture is the same for each lens, and the 85mm even
    > has a lower ISO than the other two, yet still has poorer sharpness.
    >
    > I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?
    >
    > --
    > Sandman[.net]http://jonaseklundh.se


    I can't read your EXIF. What was the shutter speed? Pretty important
    part of the story, no?
     
    otter, Dec 14, 2012
    #4
  5. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    dbd <> wrote:

    > > So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon,
    > >
    > > I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?

    >
    > In the US the 85mm 1.4G retails new for about 1500 dollars. If you paid 500
    > dollars, that might be a reason for your results.


    Ooops, missed the 1 there. Sorry abut that :) The blog post has been
    updated:

    http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/85mmdisappointment?lang=en

    > I assume that the edited images correctly represent the original pictures
    > content.
    >
    > The 85mm image has no region of really sharp focus and no content at great
    > enough distance to show the back side of the depth of field. There is no way
    > to tell from the image whether the lens is bad or the picture is focused
    > incorrectly.


    That's the thing - the method of focusing is the same for all three
    lenses. The image is incorrectly focused, and in light of the other
    two being a lot better focused, my assumption is that the problem is
    with the lens.

    > If you want the depth of field to remain constant you must keep both F-ratio
    > and image size constant. You didn't in the 50mm image so depth of field
    > changed.


    I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, really? Could you please
    elaborate?

    > The 28mm image has a region in focus and portions out of focus due to limited
    > depth of field. This is a good subject for making comparison. Too bad neither
    > of the other images are comparable.


    All three images have the same aperture, which probably gives each
    different DOF, I'm sure, but surely that's comparable?

    > If you reshoot with constant image size, remember that the longer lens has
    > tougher mounting requirements: a smaller unintentional rotation during
    > exposure will produce the same number of pixels of blur as for a shorter
    > lens.


    The image sizes are the same... I feel like I'm misunderstanding what
    you mean here...

    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 14, 2012
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <2012121314412416708-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > On 2012-12-13 10:14:30 -0800, dbd <> said:
    >
    > > On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:09:58 AM UTC-8, Sandman wrote:
    > >> So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon,
    > >>

    > > ...
    > >>
    > >> I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?
    > >>
    > >> Sandman[.net]

    > >
    > > In the US the 85mm 1.4G retails new for about 1500 dollars. If you paid 500
    > > dollars, that might be a reason for your results.

    >
    > A friend of mine (a non-photographer) shot this wide open with a
    > borrowed D800 + 85mm f/1.4G. He had no idea of what this camera lens
    > combination was capable of, and had no idea of what to do to adjust for
    > DOF:
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Kajsa 7359-A3.jpg >
    > A look at the exif data below will tell some of the story.
    > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_77.jpg >


    That's also pretty poor focus, and that's at ISO 1600, which would be
    a lot less grainy on my D3s than in that shot. I'm rather puzzled why
    the D800 has such grainy ISO1600, maybe it's because of the resolution?


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 14, 2012
    #6
  7. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article
    <>,
    otter <> wrote:

    > On Dec 13, 6:09 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > > So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon, supposedly a
    > > high-end lens with their new "Nano Crystal Coat" and rounded blades
    > > for superb bokeh. I've used it in a studio setting where bokeh is of
    > > no issue, and I've been fairly disappointed by it in terms of
    > > sharpness. My last shoot was of kids, so I used a smaller aperture
    > > (f5.6) in order to lengthen the focus length in order to handle moving
    > > subjects and still be able to get enough in focus. Here are some pics
    > > to compare them (click to enlarge):
    > >
    > > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196148.jpg>
    > >
    > > As you can see, the 85mm isn't very sharp. And it wasn't just this
    > > shot, the majority of images were poorly focused, some worse, some
    > > better. This shot is representative of the overall focusing result
    > > though.
    > >
    > > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196147.jpg>
    > >
    > > My favorite lens, the 50mm 1.4/G which, as you can see, is a lot
    > > sharper. Pretty big difference from the 85mm
    > >
    > > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196146.jpg>
    > >
    > > But the clear studio winner here is the Sigma 28mm f1.8, which
    > > incidentally is the cheapest of the three. Superb sharpness and speed.
    > >
    > > Note that the aperture is the same for each lens, and the 85mm even
    > > has a lower ISO than the other two, yet still has poorer sharpness.
    > >
    > > I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?
    > >
    > > --
    > > Sandman[.net]http://jonaseklundh.se

    >
    > I can't read your EXIF. What was the shutter speed? Pretty important
    > part of the story, no?


    Sorry. I never felt it was motion blur so I didn't think to include
    that information in the images. The blog post have been updated:

    http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/85mmdisappointment?lang=en


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 14, 2012
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Peter Jason <> wrote:

    > On 13 Dec 2012 12:09:58 GMT, Sandman
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon, supposedly a
    > >high-end lens with their new "Nano Crystal Coat" and rounded blades
    > >for superb bokeh. I've used it in a studio setting where bokeh is of
    > >no issue, and I've been fairly disappointed by it in terms of
    > >sharpness. My last shoot was of kids, so I used a smaller aperture
    > >(f5.6) in order to lengthen the focus length in order to handle moving
    > >subjects and still be able to get enough in focus. Here are some pics
    > >to compare them (click to enlarge):
    > >
    > ><http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196148.jpg>
    > >
    > >As you can see, the 85mm isn't very sharp. And it wasn't just this
    > >shot, the majority of images were poorly focused, some worse, some
    > >better. This shot is representative of the overall focusing result
    > >though.
    > >
    > ><http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196147.jpg>
    > >
    > >My favorite lens, the 50mm 1.4/G which, as you can see, is a lot
    > >sharper. Pretty big difference from the 85mm
    > >
    > ><http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196146.jpg>
    > >
    > >But the clear studio winner here is the Sigma 28mm f1.8, which
    > >incidentally is the cheapest of the three. Superb sharpness and speed.
    > >
    > >Note that the aperture is the same for each lens, and the 85mm even
    > >has a lower ISO than the other two, yet still has poorer sharpness.
    > >
    > >I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?

    >
    > I always get sharper focus when I use a flash
    > assist. The sensor seems to love the actinic
    > light. So does the lens.
    >
    > Try this next.


    I will! Thanks!


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 14, 2012
    #8
  9. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:18:56 +0100, Sandman <> wrote:
    : In article <2012121314412416708-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    : Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    :
    : > On 2012-12-13 10:14:30 -0800, dbd <> said:
    : >
    : > > On Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:09:58 AM UTC-8, Sandman wrote:
    : > >> So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon,
    : > >>
    : > > ...
    : > >>
    : > >> I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?
    : > >>
    : > >> Sandman[.net]
    : > >
    : > > In the US the 85mm 1.4G retails new for about 1500 dollars. If you paid 500
    : > > dollars, that might be a reason for your results.
    : >
    : > A friend of mine (a non-photographer) shot this wide open with a
    : > borrowed D800 + 85mm f/1.4G. He had no idea of what this camera lens
    : > combination was capable of, and had no idea of what to do to adjust for
    : > DOF:
    : > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Kajsa 7359-A3.jpg >
    : > A look at the exif data below will tell some of the story.
    : > < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_77.jpg >
    :
    : That's also pretty poor focus, and that's at ISO 1600, which would be
    : a lot less grainy on my D3s than in that shot. I'm rather puzzled why
    : the D800 has such grainy ISO1600, maybe it's because of the resolution?

    Pretty poor focus? Given that it was shot at f/1.4 from fairly close
    (therefore low DOF) I don't see how rhe lens could have done much better.

    As for the graininess, the Exif data indicate that the camera wanted flash but
    didn't get it. It's a good bet that the Duck helped his non-photographer
    friend brighten the picture considerably in post-processing. Increased noise
    is a price you pay for brightening an image from a high-resolution camera like
    the D800.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 14, 2012
    #9
  10. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > : That's also pretty poor focus, and that's at ISO 1600, which would be
    > : a lot less grainy on my D3s than in that shot. I'm rather puzzled why
    > : the D800 has such grainy ISO1600, maybe it's because of the resolution?
    >
    > Pretty poor focus? Given that it was shot at f/1.4 from fairly close
    > (therefore low DOF) I don't see how rhe lens could have done much better.


    But surely you would say that this image at 100%, zoomed in at her eye:

    <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/Kajsa%207359-A3.jpg>

    Is of poorer focus than the 100% eye in this picture:

    <http://jonaseklundh.se/media/modules/articleimages//JON/2012/12/14/10/
    28mm.jpg>

    Granted, the 100% is a lot *larger*, so scaled down to the same
    resolution, they may be the same, but still..

    And, the highlights in the eyes suggests that we have some motion blur
    in the D800 pic as well...

    I took the liberty to resize the D800 to be the same resolution as my
    D3s file shot with the Sigma 28mm:

    http://sandman.net/files/28vs85mm.jpg

    I don't know, I'd still say that the 28mm is a lot sharper, and that's
    with ISO 2500 and 1/80 shutter and f5.6 - imagine the 28mm matching
    the exposure settings of the 85mm?

    All I'm saying is that this pic didn't really win me over for being a
    very sharp lens.

    Mind you - I *WANT* this to be user error and not lens problems. I
    will fix my studio setup and try it again :)

    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 14, 2012
    #10
  11. Sandman

    dbd Guest

    On Friday, December 14, 2012 1:15:48 AM UTC-8, Sandman wrote:
    ....
    > > The 85mm image has no region of really sharp focus and no content at great
    > > enough distance to show the back side of the depth of field. There is no way
    > > to tell from the image whether the lens is bad or the picture is focused
    > > incorrectly.

    >
    > That's the thing - the method of focusing is the same for all three
    > lenses. The image is incorrectly focused, and in light of the other
    > two being a lot better focused, my assumption is that the problem is
    > with the lens.
    >


    The ideal DOF/focus test image would have a region to far away to be in focus, a region in focus and a region too close to focus. Then we could tell if you had placed the plane of best focus on an object within the image. Youdidn't do that so we can't tell bad focus(lens) from bad focusing(photographer). Intended method of focusing doesn't count, only achieved (as shown by the image) focus counts.


    > > If you want the depth of field to remain constant you must keep both F-ratio
    > > and image size constant. You didn't in the 50mm image so depth of field
    > > changed.

    > I'm not sure I understand what you mean here, really? Could you please
    > elaborate?


    Pick an object in the photo (say the babies head) and keep it the same sizein the photos you wish to compare.
    From:
    http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_imagesize.html
    quote
    A rule of thumb for depth of field is:
    Depth of field is the same for all lenses when the image size is constant and the same f-stop is used.
    endquote

    Dale B. Dalrymple
     
    dbd, Dec 14, 2012
    #11
  12. Sandman

    otter Guest

    On Dec 14, 3:23 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >  otter <> wrote:
    > > On Dec 13, 6:09 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > > > So I bought the ~$500 85mm f1.4/G lens from Nikon, supposedly a
    > > > high-end lens with their new "Nano Crystal Coat" and rounded blades
    > > > for superb bokeh. I've used it in a studio setting where bokeh is of
    > > > no issue, and I've been fairly disappointed by it in terms of
    > > > sharpness. My last shoot was of kids, so I used a smaller aperture
    > > > (f5.6) in order to lengthen the focus length in order to handle moving
    > > > subjects and still be able to get enough in focus. Here are some pics
    > > > to compare them (click to enlarge):

    >
    > > > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196148.jpg>

    >
    > > > As you can see, the 85mm isn't very sharp. And it wasn't just this
    > > > shot, the majority of images were poorly focused, some worse, some
    > > > better. This shot is representative of the overall focusing result
    > > > though.

    >
    > > > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196147.jpg>

    >
    > > > My favorite lens, the 50mm 1.4/G which, as you can see, is a lot
    > > > sharper. Pretty big difference from the 85mm

    >
    > > > <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg196146.jpg>

    >
    > > > But the clear studio winner here is the Sigma 28mm f1.8, which
    > > > incidentally is the cheapest of the three. Superb sharpness and speed..

    >
    > > > Note that the aperture is the same for each lens, and the 85mm even
    > > > has a lower ISO than the other two, yet still has poorer sharpness.

    >
    > > > I'm sort of wondering what I'm doing wrong with this one?

    >
    > > > --
    > > > Sandman[.net]http://jonaseklundh.se

    >
    > > I can't read your EXIF.  What was the shutter speed?  Pretty important
    > > part of the story, no?

    >
    > Sorry. I never felt it was motion blur so I didn't think to include
    > that information in the images. The blog post have been updated:
    >
    > http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/85mmdisappointment?lang=en


    1/(focal length) is a common guideline. Some people like to at least
    double that speed. That guideline also only holds if you are
    positioned well and trying to be still, and doesn't take into account
    movement of the subjects. If you notice, the first picture was at
    1/60 which did not meet the 1/85 guideline. The other pictures that
    you are happier with just met the guideline, in the case of the 50mm,
    and exceeded it by about 3X in the case of the 28mm, which you liked
    the best.

    I think if you want to fairly judge this lens, you need to start with
    a good tripod, remote release, good light, and static subjects with
    high contrast edges. Take some shots at 1/1000. If the pictures are
    sharp, it is not the lens at fault, it is technique.
     
    otter, Dec 14, 2012
    #12
  13. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article
    <>,
    otter <> wrote:

    > > Sorry. I never felt it was motion blur so I didn't think to include
    > > that information in the images. The blog post have been updated:
    > >
    > > http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/85mmdisappointment?lang=en

    >
    > 1/(focal length) is a common guideline. Some people like to at least
    > double that speed. That guideline also only holds if you are
    > positioned well and trying to be still, and doesn't take into account
    > movement of the subjects. If you notice, the first picture was at
    > 1/60 which did not meet the 1/85 guideline. The other pictures that
    > you are happier with just met the guideline, in the case of the 50mm,
    > and exceeded it by about 3X in the case of the 28mm, which you liked
    > the best.


    All sounds logical to me, which of course means that you judge the
    focus problems to be motion blur. I just didn't make that conclusion
    myself, but when you put it like that, I have to concede that it would
    make sense.

    > I think if you want to fairly judge this lens, you need to start with
    > a good tripod, remote release, good light, and static subjects with
    > high contrast edges. Take some shots at 1/1000. If the pictures are
    > sharp, it is not the lens at fault, it is technique.


    Good point. These pics were not me testing the lens, it was a real
    shoot and I just used these pics for reference for my disappointment.
    I will use your suggestions to further test the lens during the next
    shoot.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 15, 2012
    #13
  14. Sandman

    otter Guest

    On Dec 15, 8:45 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    >
    >  otter <> wrote:
    > > > Sorry. I never felt it was motion blur so I didn't think to include
    > > > that information in the images. The blog post have been updated:

    >
    > > >http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/85mmdisappointment?lang=en

    >
    > > 1/(focal length) is a common guideline.  Some people like to at least
    > > double that speed.  That guideline also only holds if you are
    > > positioned well and trying to be still, and doesn't take into account
    > > movement of the subjects.  If you notice, the first picture was at
    > > 1/60 which did not meet the 1/85 guideline.  The other pictures that
    > > you are happier with just met the guideline, in the case of the 50mm,
    > > and exceeded it by about 3X in the case of the 28mm, which you liked
    > > the best.

    >
    > All sounds logical to me, which of course means that you judge the
    > focus problems to be motion blur. I just didn't make that conclusion
    > myself, but when you put it like that, I have to concede that it would
    > make sense.
    >
    > > I think if you want to fairly judge this lens, you need to start with
    > > a good tripod, remote release, good light, and static subjects with
    > > high contrast edges.  Take some shots at 1/1000.  If the pictures are
    > > sharp, it is not the lens at fault, it is technique.

    >
    > Good point. These pics were not me testing the lens, it was a real
    > shoot and I just used these pics for reference for my disappointment.
    > I will use your suggestions to further test the lens during the next
    > shoot.
    >
    > --
    > Sandman[.net]


    I would do the experimenting BEFORE the next shoot. It could be a
    number of things, but you should figure out what the problem is before
    you try again with live models.
     
    otter, Dec 15, 2012
    #14
  15. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article
    <>,
    otter <> wrote:

    > On Dec 15, 8:45 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > >
    > >  otter <> wrote:
    > > > > Sorry. I never felt it was motion blur so I didn't think to include
    > > > > that information in the images. The blog post have been updated:

    > >
    > > > >http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/85mmdisappointment?lang=en

    > >
    > > > 1/(focal length) is a common guideline.  Some people like to at least
    > > > double that speed.  That guideline also only holds if you are
    > > > positioned well and trying to be still, and doesn't take into account
    > > > movement of the subjects.  If you notice, the first picture was at
    > > > 1/60 which did not meet the 1/85 guideline.  The other pictures that
    > > > you are happier with just met the guideline, in the case of the 50mm,
    > > > and exceeded it by about 3X in the case of the 28mm, which you liked
    > > > the best.

    > >
    > > All sounds logical to me, which of course means that you judge the
    > > focus problems to be motion blur. I just didn't make that conclusion
    > > myself, but when you put it like that, I have to concede that it would
    > > make sense.
    > >
    > > > I think if you want to fairly judge this lens, you need to start with
    > > > a good tripod, remote release, good light, and static subjects with
    > > > high contrast edges.  Take some shots at 1/1000.  If the pictures are
    > > > sharp, it is not the lens at fault, it is technique.

    > >
    > > Good point. These pics were not me testing the lens, it was a real
    > > shoot and I just used these pics for reference for my disappointment.
    > > I will use your suggestions to further test the lens during the next
    > > shoot.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Sandman[.net]

    >
    > I would do the experimenting BEFORE the next shoot. It could be a
    > number of things, but you should figure out what the problem is before
    > you try again with live models.


    Right, but the 85mm is the "new lens" so my shoots are already mainly
    done with the lenses I'm comfortable with and then I try the new one
    out when I'm sure I have what I want. :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 15, 2012
    #15
  16. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:45:39 +0100, Sandman <> wrote:
    : In article
    : <>,
    : otter <> wrote:
    :
    : > > Sorry. I never felt it was motion blur so I didn't think to include
    : > > that information in the images. The blog post have been updated:
    : > >
    : > > http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/85mmdisappointment?lang=en
    : >
    : > 1/(focal length) is a common guideline. Some people like to at least
    : > double that speed. That guideline also only holds if you are
    : > positioned well and trying to be still, and doesn't take into account
    : > movement of the subjects. If you notice, the first picture was at
    : > 1/60 which did not meet the 1/85 guideline. The other pictures that
    : > you are happier with just met the guideline, in the case of the 50mm,
    : > and exceeded it by about 3X in the case of the 28mm, which you liked
    : > the best.
    :
    : All sounds logical to me, which of course means that you judge the
    : focus problems to be motion blur. I just didn't make that conclusion
    : myself, but when you put it like that, I have to concede that it would
    : make sense.

    I'm dubious. Motion blur is usually directional, and I don't see evidence of
    that in your pictures. My guess (and it's only that, obviously) is that it's a
    misadjustment of the focus point. That's testable by taking pictures of a
    three-dimensional scene wide open (to minimize DoF) and see whether the focus
    point really is where the camera thought it was. If it isn't, back the lens
    goes to the Nikon shop. (It's new, so it's still under warranty, right?)

    FWIW, this opinion isn't a total WAG. I had the same thing happen to me with a
    highly regarded Canon lens. I screwed up the first shoot I used it on, because
    I stupidly didn't test it first. I was saved only because I was using two
    cameras and the lens on the second camera was OK.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 16, 2012
    #16
  17. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:23:34 +0000, Anthony Polson <>
    wrote:
    : otter <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Dec 15, 8:45 am, Sandman <> wrote:
    : >> In article
    : >> <>,
    : >>
    : >>  otter <> wrote:
    : >> > > Sorry. I never felt it was motion blur so I didn't think to include
    : >> > > that information in the images. The blog post have been updated:
    : >>
    : >> > >http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/85mmdisappointment?lang=en
    : >>
    : >> > 1/(focal length) is a common guideline.  Some people like to at least
    : >> > double that speed.  That guideline also only holds if you are
    : >> > positioned well and trying to be still, and doesn't take into account
    : >> > movement of the subjects.  If you notice, the first picture was at
    : >> > 1/60 which did not meet the 1/85 guideline.  The other pictures that
    : >> > you are happier with just met the guideline, in the case of the 50mm,
    : >> > and exceeded it by about 3X in the case of the 28mm, which you liked
    : >> > the best.
    : >>
    : >> All sounds logical to me, which of course means that you judge the
    : >> focus problems to be motion blur. I just didn't make that conclusion
    : >> myself, but when you put it like that, I have to concede that it would
    : >> make sense.
    : >>
    : >> > I think if you want to fairly judge this lens, you need to start with
    : >> > a good tripod, remote release, good light, and static subjects with
    : >> > high contrast edges.  Take some shots at 1/1000.  If the pictures are
    : >> > sharp, it is not the lens at fault, it is technique.
    : >>
    : >> Good point. These pics were not me testing the lens, it was a real
    : >> shoot and I just used these pics for reference for my disappointment.
    : >> I will use your suggestions to further test the lens during the next
    : >> shoot.
    : >>
    : >> --
    : >> Sandman[.net]
    : >
    : >I would do the experimenting BEFORE the next shoot. It could be a
    : >number of things, but you should figure out what the problem is before
    : >you try again with live models.
    :
    :
    : If lenses could post to Usenet newsgroups, there would be an AF-S
    : Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 complaining that it had been purchased by someone
    : who hadn't the faintest idea how to get the best out of it.
    :
    : A new 85mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor and a day's one-to-one tuition would have
    : cost a fraction of the price of the 85mm f/1.4G **and** produced
    : better results.

    That's absurdly harsh. It's obvious from Jonas's Web site that he's a
    competent photographer. The fact that he's having difficulty diagnosing a
    problem with his lens doesn't mean that he doesn't know how to use it. For all
    you or I know, the fault may lie entirely in the lens itself and not at all in
    his skills or expectations.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 16, 2012
    #17
  18. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > : >I would do the experimenting BEFORE the next shoot. It could be a
    > : >number of things, but you should figure out what the problem is before
    > : >you try again with live models.
    > :
    > :
    > : If lenses could post to Usenet newsgroups, there would be an AF-S
    > : Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 complaining that it had been purchased by someone
    > : who hadn't the faintest idea how to get the best out of it.
    > :
    > : A new 85mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor and a day's one-to-one tuition would have
    > : cost a fraction of the price of the 85mm f/1.4G **and** produced
    > : better results.
    >
    > That's absurdly harsh. It's obvious from Jonas's Web site that he's a
    > competent photographer. The fact that he's having difficulty diagnosing a
    > problem with his lens doesn't mean that he doesn't know how to use it. For all
    > you or I know, the fault may lie entirely in the lens itself and not at all in
    > his skills or expectations.


    While I agree that it was a bit harsh, I readily admit to hoping that
    this is user error, since I expect this lens to be really great.

    The suggestions has been poor lighting, which I agree with and I will
    remedy that and try again. This would also lower the shutter speed and
    the ISO which would help. "otter" illustrated this by saying that the
    shutter speed should be at least 1/(focal length), which means that
    the 85mm should have used 1/90 as shutter speed, but I used 1/60.
    Again, that's working from the assumption that the focus problems are
    motion blur - which is entirely possible.

    The problem with "fixing" this with more light is that that is quite
    possible by using the flash lamps (that were used as just lamps in
    that shoot) as you know, actual flash units. But while this would make
    the scene lighter, the studio would still be as dark as then when
    acquiring focus, so I fear that this may not help as much as it
    should.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 17, 2012
    #18
  19. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Anthony Polson <> wrote:

    > >I would do the experimenting BEFORE the next shoot. It could be a
    > >number of things, but you should figure out what the problem is before
    > >you try again with live models.

    >
    > If lenses could post to Usenet newsgroups, there would be an AF-S
    > Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 complaining that it had been purchased by someone
    > who hadn't the faintest idea how to get the best out of it.


    Cute :)

    So, how does this "someone" go about to acquire the knowledge to "get
    the best out of it"?

    But I really hope you're right, that the problem is on my side of the
    camera. :)



    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 17, 2012
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ronnie Sellar

    Kodak DCSpro 14N and Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8D

    Ronnie Sellar, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    651
    Ronnie Sellar
    Jul 23, 2003
  2. Gary Mattingly

    Nikon 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor AIS

    Gary Mattingly, Feb 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    7,935
  3. GTABuySell
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    8,279
    GTABuySell
    Jun 7, 2004
  4. Brian

    FS - Nikon 28-85mm Zoom Nikkor AI-S lens - $300

    Brian, Jul 23, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    663
    Brian
    Jul 23, 2007
  5. Bruce

    Nikon D4 announced! Also AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G

    Bruce, Jan 6, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    644
    Doug McDonald
    Jan 12, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page