1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Zoom end fuzziness?

Discussion in 'Help Team' started by abmgen2008, Feb 17, 2008.

  1. abmgen2008

    abmgen2008 New Member

    I took pures of a Church exterior yesterday and on reviewing them via the camera I was perplexed to find that they seemed not to be sharp focussed. I was using the Nikon 18-200 at 18mm. On aother ocassion I have looked though the viewfinder at 200mm only to find the same condition at the other end of zoom. so perhaps the lens should be labelled a 20-190. Trying f16 during this sequence didn't seem to affect this fuzziness
    I have read other Nikon 18-200 owners colpain about the sam thing. Shoulkd I heave it into the nearest waste tip and by a number of fixed focus lenses at much greater cost or set it permannetly at 100 mm? Does any one know?
  2. parisian

    parisian Well-Known Member

    a, Which focus point was chosen? Very easy to get the wrong one on architectural shots.
    b, No current LCD screen will give an accurate view of the shot.
    c, The lens is good but not perfect
    d, Any chance of you throwing it this way rather than on the tip?
    e, What is 'pure'
    f, Does your computer have a spell-check?
  3. Hotblack

    Hotblack Dead Horse Flogger

    g, What shutter speeds were you using?
    h, Were you using a tripod?
  4. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    The 18-200 Nikkor is a typical mega-zoom thus optically compromised as hell. There likely is an optimum focal length for it but it's unlikely to be at either extreme. That said the reviews tend to suggest that the Nikkor is better than most and one or two other members round here swear by it.

    How are you actually assessing the sharpness? You say in the viewfinder but my experience is that softness due to the lens is difficult to see and even poor focussing is tricky to be sure of. The LCD screen on the back IMO is not much better as it's difficult often to determine at what point you are veiwing actual pixels. Couple this with the fact that digital images are generally unsharp anyway, especially RAW files, and require post processing sharpening to get the best from them and you start to realise that you can only get a proper idea of image quality via the PC and/or print. Have you tried printing an image?

    It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that the lens is faulty, it happens from time to time, but the only way to check this is to take pictures of a subject with strong features that the AF can pick up on at the various focal lengths then print them to the same size and see what you get. Make sure you use only the centre AF point (it's the most accurate) and also try a few manually foccused as well as this could highlight an AF calibration issue.

    For absolute image quality use a prime lens - or at least a zoom with shorter range (say 5x max). Lenses like the 18-200 are a 'jack of all trades, master of none' solution - handy for convenience but not always the ideal tool for the job.
  5. ermintrude

    ermintrude Hinkypuff

    Have you fiddled with the focus of the viewfinder switch?
    Why are you just viewing them in-camera?
    What does it look like on screen? ie the actual result?

    Extremes of a zoom are never going to be as good as the middle of the zoom whether you get a cheap piece of junk or a couple of grand lens. It would be helpful if you posted an example of the problem you are having at the end of the zoom to compare with one you are having at the optimum.

    Of course, you could have a dud in which case Im sure taking it back for a replacement would fix it. ;)
  6. john_g

    john_g Well-Known Member

    Your right leg I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That's what I said when I saw you come in. I said ‘A lovely leg for the role.’ I've got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is — neither have you. You fall down on your left.
  7. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    I guess the OP meant to type 'pictures' but left out the 'ict'. However, it does make me ponder whether the problems he/she is having with the camera is simply the same sloppiness and lack of attention to detail as went into that post. ;)
  8. parisian

    parisian Well-Known Member

    I wondered if it was the 'newspeak' RAW to be honest but given the rest of the post it could have been just about anything David

Share This Page