DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

This isn't so much a review of the lens but more so some observations.

I have only had the lens for a few days and only taken a few photos (about 40). One thing that I have found on a few of my images is a "soft spot" (if you can call it that). Let me explain.

I took some photos yesterday around the Opera House and was playing with the seetings a bit. Anyway I took a photo of two girls sitting next to each other and the aperture was at F22 (or close to that) and the VR was on. One of the girls is razor sharp (probably the sharpest I have seen in any of my images) but the other girl is quite "soft", not quite out of focus but just, well soft.

Now the shutter speed was still at about 1/80th or something like that so I don't think it would be movement by the girl (maybe it was?)

Has anyone else with this lens noticed this?

A few of my other images have turned out similar (soft) when the VR is turned on. Is there a trick to using a VR lens?

Cheers,

W00DY

Woody
Congrat with the new toy!
Have you signed the application to join the VR Club yet?

W00DY wrote:Hi all,

This isn't so much a review of the lens but more so some observations.

I have only had the lens for a few days and only taken a few photos (about 40). One thing that I have found on a few of my images is a "soft spot" (if you can call it that). Let me explain.

I took some photos yesterday around the Opera House and was playing with the seetings a bit. Anyway I took a photo of two girls sitting next to each other and the aperture was at F22 (or close to that) and the VR was on. One of the girls is razor sharp (probably the sharpest I have seen in any of my images) but the other girl is quite "soft", not quite out of focus but just, well soft.

Now the shutter speed was still at about 1/80th or something like that so I don't think it would be movement by the girl (maybe it was?)

Has anyone else with this lens noticed this?

A few of my other images have turned out similar (soft) when the VR is turned on. Is there a trick to using a VR lens?

Cheers,

W00DY

What mode is it on? M/A or M when VR on? Post an image so people here can tell.

Birddog114 wrote:Woody
Congrat with the new toy!
Have you signed the application to join the VR Club yet?

Do I have to sign in blood????

Birddog114 wrote:What mode is it on? M/A or M when VR on? Post an image so people here can tell.

It was just on M/A with VR turned on. I will post an image tonight, had to come in to work early today and didn't get time to think about it last night.

The images that are coming out I am blown away by... There are just a few which I am confussed on, most likely the operator (I can pretend my wife was using the camer )

W00DY

Do I have to sign in blood????

No, you have to sign in with REDs

Birddog114 wrote:
No, you have to sign in with REDs

????

Sorry don't get it (This happens a lot)

Ohhh hang on.....

RED's as in Red wine....

I should have known

W00DY wrote:Hi all,

This isn't so much a review of the lens but more so some observations.

I have only had the lens for a few days and only taken a few photos (about 40). One thing that I have found on a few of my images is a "soft spot" (if you can call it that). Let me explain.

I took some photos yesterday around the Opera House and was playing with the seetings a bit. Anyway I took a photo of two girls sitting next to each other and the aperture was at F22 (or close to that) and the VR was on. One of the girls is razor sharp (probably the sharpest I have seen in any of my images) but the other girl is quite "soft", not quite out of focus but just, well soft.

Now the shutter speed was still at about 1/80th or something like that so I don't think it would be movement by the girl (maybe it was?)

Has anyone else with this lens noticed this?

A few of my other images have turned out similar (soft) when the VR is turned on. Is there a trick to using a VR lens?

Cheers,

W00DY

Post the image Woody..post it . I am hoping to get the 24-120 sometime in the new-ish year.

Geoff

Geoff wrote:Post the image Woody..post it . I am hoping to get the 24-120 sometime in the new-ish year.

Geoff

I'll post it tonight.

W00DY

No Woody, we want you to post it now.



(Only joking)

This certainly sounds strange, but can't confirm without the pics.

If it's a one off, we can blame the subject moving or whatever; but if it's consistent, it could be the lens or could be the mapping of your sensor to cover up dead pixels (and hence loss of res, evident as 'not sharp' image) that are only just getting noticed now (remember I never knew I had focus issues until 10mths into ownership).

W00DY wrote:... I took a photo of two girls sitting next to each other and the aperture was at F22 (or close to that) and the VR was on. One of the girls is razor sharp (probably the sharpest I have seen in any of my images) but the other girl is quite "soft", not quite out of focus but just, well soft.
W00DY

G'day woody
Not sure that I'd be looking for a vr issue immediately, but when the pix are up, we might have a better idea.
There are certain conditions that might also be the culprit:
- you are shooting at f22; but DOF can still be quite limited when you are using long focal length, especially if you are relatively close to subject
- if both subjects not on same plane of focus (ie you are shooting at an angle) then DOF more critical too
It would be interesting to see the pix
Hope you are enjoying your new toy

Ok here is the picture:



I got the EXIF wrong I was shooting at 5.6 and 1/250sec.

I think it is a DOF issue but I thought 5.6 would be ok?

Anyway any comments???

Just to show how happy I am with this lens, here is a picture of my son's Xmas present taken at F5 & 1/20sec!!!! This is the VR in all it's glory



W00DY

Hi Woody,
I'm wanting to get this lens soon myself...looks great so far. You must be excited about the bike and your son? Is it his first bike? . Cool! Merry Christmas.


Geoff.

Geoff wrote:Hi Woody,
I'm wanting to get this lens soon myself...looks great so far. You must be excited about the bike and your son? Is it his first bike? . Cool! Merry Christmas.


Geoff.

Yeah, first real bike... I was very proud when buying it

Actually, that's Woody's bike. The lens is his son's.

Woody, great pics. The bike at 1/20th certainly illustrates VR well.
The other one, at f/5.6 and those distances sure looks like a simple case of insufficient depth of field - so no worries about problems with your lens or anything.

Onyx wrote:The other one, at f/5.6 and those distances sure looks like a simple case of insufficient depth of field - so no worries about problems with your lens or anything.

Onyx can you elaborate on that?

When you say insufficient DOF do you mean I shoudl have maybe shot at f8 / f11???

Also how does the distance effect the DOF? You don't need to go into detail here a basic if it is this far away you should increase DOF etc...

Also take your time replying as I am off to bed and it is Xmas tomorrow so you have until Boxing Day

W00DY

Sure Woody, I'll try to elaborate. When you focus on something close, it's easier to get background blur, ie. there's less distance difference needed before something becomes unsharp. If the ladies were sitting further away, eg. where those ppl are sitting in the background, even if one of them were in front of the other (relative to the camera), f/5.6 might have been enough to render them both sharply.

In short, if you're taking pics of subjects as close to the camera as you had there, best to use a smaller aperture (as you mentioned f/8 or f/11) to ensure sufficient depth of field.

To take the matter to the extreme, macro photographers will tell you just how shallow DOF they have to work with, when they're mere centimeters away from their subjects.

Well those pics (and those of Vic's) have convinced me that the 24-120VR is the ideal replacement for my kit lens. Roll on mid-January when I'll have it my hot little hands (via Birddog, of course!).

W00DY wrote:Ok here is the picture:

I got the EXIF wrong I was shooting at 5.6 and 1/250sec.

I think it is a DOF issue but I thought 5.6 would be ok?

W00DY

Gday again woody
Yeah, it seems like I could have been right. Firstly, f5.6 is OK for portraiture where only one subject; or all subjects in same focal plane. With a tele lens (especially a good one like your vr), you should actually get terrific bokeh at this aperture.

But, if subjects aligned at an angle like your 2 attractive models, then probably f16 or greater is needed to retain sharpness in both.

A secondary issue is that DOF is greater behind point of focus than in front of it. In your pic, if point of focus had been on eyes of closest subject, you may have had enough DOF for both.

In any case, I don't find the focus in your pic to be off-putting.

And I love the bike. Red ones go faster, too - I remember that from when I was a kid.

I am thinking the gal to the left is just a tad too close to the lens and just in front of dof. Notice the wine glass on the right is crystal clear sharp but it is behind the subjects. Maybe a little farther back and both would be tack on. Great shot, Merry Christmas.

A

In case anyone needed anymore reasons to buy this lens:

100% crop, handheld at 1/25th sec!!!



A little blurry but at 1/25th you would have to expect that.

I am getting mixed results from this lens though, what I have worked out is if you are not shooting with a slow shutter it is best to have the VR turned off (if the subject is moving, ie: kids) with the VR turned on it seems like it takes a little extra time to focus, so if you don't need it turn it off.

Feel free to correct me on this if I am doing something different and this shouldn't be the case.

W00DY

Very nice, as other people, going to get my hands on this nice piece of glass soon, but there are other things to get first of course.

nice example... ah.... so much tooing and froing over this lens!!!