Question about Nikon lenses and possible damage

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #20 on:** 5 Aug 2013, 06:35 pm »

EDIT:

Waste of time....be right back.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #21 on:** 5 Aug 2013, 06:46 pm »

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #22 on:** 5 Aug 2013, 07:00 pm »

Yea. Sorry 'bout that. Longer story than it's worth typing, plus I made a double post.

Anyway....

18-55 VR tight;

18-55 VR wide;

18-55 tight;

18-55 wide;

55-200 tight;

55-200 wide;

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #23 on:** 5 Aug 2013, 07:03 pm »

Well, there's another waste of time.

Too bright outside to see the screen. The thumbnails on Photobucket aren't revealing enough.
Not until I post and see larger pics do I realize the garbage I've spent time creating.

That's enough of that for today. Just as well toss all of it in the trash and start over some other day.

low.pfile · « **Reply #24 on:** 5 Aug 2013, 07:14 pm »

Bob, I looked at your test pics. you need to shoot at the lowest ISO, not the highest (your shots are at ISO 25,600). the image noise obscures the detail which is what you are trying to review. being on a tripod will allow you to use the lowest ISO. Good luck.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #25 on:** 5 Aug 2013, 07:16 pm »

Yes, you are VERY correct. You're assuming I know how to use the machine though.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #26 on:** 5 Aug 2013, 11:24 pm »

Have Tina 'splain it to you, Bob. Didn't someone send the camera owner's manual to HER a while back? I'm betting she read it, too.

Edit: The 55-200 shots look fine, as does the 18-55 shot of the vinyl siding with the lens tilted way up. The tree leaves in the upper right corner are as sharp or more sharp than the leaves in the upper left, which is different from the original shot of your family. And reason for some optimism about the lens.......

Of course it could be the ISO being so high you could use it to find deep space galaxies from your back porch................and it would cause the aperture to be so small
(greater depth of field) that it could mask the problem.

Anyway, please shoot close ups of the siding with the 18-55 with a low ISO and a level camera. That should tell us the answer. If it turns out it's operator error we're going to have a GAS party at your house and remove all your woodworking tools as you are clearly a danger to yourself.

We're taking this drastic step because we care for you, Bro! The kids need you for at least a few more years. It's the least we can do.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #27 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 01:08 am »

Thanks Bob.

With work, it'll more than likely be next weekend before I get back around to shooting pictures. With my level of frustration and aggravation, I'm more likely to take the cameras outside and shoot at them.
Tina knows less about photography than I do. Not that she isn't smarter than me, just not about photographtography.

Good to hear you think there's a glimmer of hope with the VR though.

Thank you guys for your time and expertise.

Bob

thunderbrick · « **Reply #28 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 01:14 am »

I'd be happy to help in person, but you know I can't get to STL anytime soon. Dammit!

If/when I do get up that way I can run some tests for you and come up with a real solution. Might even loan you my spare 18-55.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #29 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 01:30 am »

Take your time Bob. I have nothing important to shoot anytime soon. Mostly the same old playing around type stuff.
I'd appreciate you putting your eyes on it "whenever". But like I said, I'll shoot some more vinyl siding porn next weekend.

JohnR · « **Reply #30 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 08:07 am »

I kinda do wonder whether the VR was causing some of the issues in the family pic. It doesn't look right anywhere. To be honest I preferred the older version (non VR) of that lens when I had it.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #31 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 11:57 am »

Bob, do you have any other images with the inconsistent sharpness? I think the girls are behind and not quite on the same plain as the guys in that shot. That MIGHT be enough at the wide-open aperture to give you that issue, but it doesn't explain the (perceived) difference in the background.

Using an audio analogy, ISO 25,600

is like recording a major orchestra on RTR at 1 7/8 IPS. It'll get the job done, but you won't like it.

JohnR · « **Reply #32 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 11:58 am »

No no.

Bob needs to buy more lenses.

Simple solution

thunderbrick · « **Reply #33 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 02:18 pm »

I know that, John, and YOU know that! We have to make BISL think it's HIS idea.

I'd like to consider the 200 macro, but it's not a priority right now.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #34 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 04:33 pm »

You guys know I need lenses, and I know I need lenses. But my wife isn't convinced yet. I'm thinking you guys should donate some to her, and the she'll realize just how much she's been missing all these years.

Bob, I've got hundred of pics 'm not happy with. But I'm sure that most are due my own inadequacies, not the camera. There are some that I had a hard time buying the idea that were my fault though. The one I posted just happens to be the one with the most glaring flaw.

Bob

thunderbrick · « **Reply #35 on:** 6 Aug 2013, 05:50 pm »

You mean because you were closest to the camera?

Looking at it again I think Tina was a few feet behind you, and with a wide-open aperture that may have been enough to "bob it up."

Does the 18-55 zoom and focus smoothly? Any odd noises in the lens?

C'mon! We wanna see some more vinyl siding porn!

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #36 on:** 7 Aug 2013, 12:31 am »

The movement in the lenses feels relatively smooth. It's not as "glass like" as I would thing they should be, but there are no "catches", or hangups.

SET Man · « **Reply #37 on:** 8 Aug 2013, 12:10 am »

Hey!

Nice vinyl siding Bob

Anyway, seriously now. I don't shoot with Nikon but all camera and lenses share common possible problems.

First, some lens/zooms are naturally soft wide open. But I don't think your 18-55mm is that soft even if is a kit zoom lens.

Second, lens.. any lens can get knock out of alignment if you drop or bang it hard enough. Since Nikon use stabilizer inside the lens, maybe this can get knock out of alignment also.

Third, the sensor in the body is out of alignment... this is unlikely with your Nikon. But possible with my Sony DSLR since the stabilizer is built-in the body instead of the lens.

Here's how I test focus....

_DSC2219 by setpower1, on Flickr

You will need to set a rig. A long ruler or yard stick with number large enough to see in viewfinder. Tape it or put it on a table. Or make marks on a side of shelf or wall. Select the central focus point on your camera. Than put your camera on tripod and set the camera on an angle as much as you can but still can see the number. Set the aperture wide open.... you should do this in Manual or Aperture Priority mode. Pick a number and get as close as you can to the minimum focus distance on your lens, point the focus point at the number and focus... if too close move back until the camera can lock the focus. Take the shot and see....

_DSC2217 by setpower1, on Flickr

The above is from my 28-70mm f2.8 at 70mm...

_DSC2214 by setpower1, on Flickr

And here set at it widest 24mm.

At 70mm it was spot on. At 24mm also pretty good. I think is maybe 1/16" off... maybe, it could be the deeper depth of filed at 24mm since the "20" is still in focus. So, it is all good

I do test all my cameras, film or digital and lenses for focus accuracy. I usually find that if the focus is good with close-up test like this than focus is usually good through infinity.

Hope this help

Take care,
Buddy

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #38 on:** 8 Aug 2013, 12:22 am »

Thanks Buddy, that's pretty cool.
But I think the point is going over my head though. I just plain don't get it.
If I set the focus to the mid point, set the zoom to "all in, or all out", then move the tripod to where a set point/distance can be read........I think I'm missing something.

Bob

charmerci · « **Reply #39 on:** 8 Aug 2013, 09:24 pm »

Love that first ruler photo with only the 20 in focus!