Focus Issues
Dec 6, 2016 23:55:10 #
rando
Loc: Rochester NY
This is my first posting, but a lot of you asked me to post pictures that were out of focus to try to determine what the problem may be with my Tamron 16-300 zoom. I trust you will be kind but informative. Obviously, these are not my best photos.
Dec 7, 2016 00:16:18 #
Dec 7, 2016 00:29:19 #
The door in the first photo and the upside down cup in the second one seem to be in focus.
Dec 7, 2016 00:34:26 #
Dec 7, 2016 00:34:48 #
This is all my personal opinion:
1. this lens is a jack of all trades and master of none, a very good solid lens but not great
2. you were at a slow shutter speed and wide aperture so you might have some camera movement here and you definitely have shallow depth of field (yes even at the wide setting you were using it can't keep things the size of your subjects in the sharp zone)
The problem is that they are trying to cover a huge bit of territory to make a general walk around lens that seldom needs switching out for another lens and keep the price down, they succeeded at the cost that while a fairly sharp lens it is not great. Of course lens with this kind of coverage and great sharpness cost much more, like the 100-400 mk II at over $2K and a few others even more expensive.
I do a lot of birds, bugs and flowers so I sprang for the 100-400 mk II (replacing a mark I) and the Canon 1.4X mk III to go with it. I also use a Tamron 180 macro, sometimes with a 1.4X Kenko Pro 300, on my 7DII that gives me 403 mm angle of view at the sharpness of a very good macro lens.
For general walk around I have a 24-105L and if I go beyond that I just jump to the 100-400. For my kind of high IQ photography the combo works better than the 16-300, but of course much more bulk, much more weight, takes two lenses and north of $3K.
I had the 16-300 for one day, and swapped it for the 10-24 mm which is a great wide zoom in my opinion. But I knew I wasn't much on wide angle photography used it two or three times in a year and when my daughter absolutely feel in love with it I gave it to her as part of her graduation present from UCLA. (the other part was my 70-300)
So you have a really good walk around lens but it is not a tack sharp lens under most conditions.
On your picture (at least the first since the exif is stripped from the second) if you had used alonger setting, closer to the 300 mm and stood back a lot further you would have had more DOF.
1. this lens is a jack of all trades and master of none, a very good solid lens but not great
2. you were at a slow shutter speed and wide aperture so you might have some camera movement here and you definitely have shallow depth of field (yes even at the wide setting you were using it can't keep things the size of your subjects in the sharp zone)
The problem is that they are trying to cover a huge bit of territory to make a general walk around lens that seldom needs switching out for another lens and keep the price down, they succeeded at the cost that while a fairly sharp lens it is not great. Of course lens with this kind of coverage and great sharpness cost much more, like the 100-400 mk II at over $2K and a few others even more expensive.
I do a lot of birds, bugs and flowers so I sprang for the 100-400 mk II (replacing a mark I) and the Canon 1.4X mk III to go with it. I also use a Tamron 180 macro, sometimes with a 1.4X Kenko Pro 300, on my 7DII that gives me 403 mm angle of view at the sharpness of a very good macro lens.
For general walk around I have a 24-105L and if I go beyond that I just jump to the 100-400. For my kind of high IQ photography the combo works better than the 16-300, but of course much more bulk, much more weight, takes two lenses and north of $3K.
I had the 16-300 for one day, and swapped it for the 10-24 mm which is a great wide zoom in my opinion. But I knew I wasn't much on wide angle photography used it two or three times in a year and when my daughter absolutely feel in love with it I gave it to her as part of her graduation present from UCLA. (the other part was my 70-300)
So you have a really good walk around lens but it is not a tack sharp lens under most conditions.
On your picture (at least the first since the exif is stripped from the second) if you had used alonger setting, closer to the 300 mm and stood back a lot further you would have had more DOF.
Dec 7, 2016 00:39:51 #
The problem seems to be depth of field. You need a higher F stop to increase your DOF.
Dec 7, 2016 06:45:48 #
letmedance is on the right track. The pictures are in focus, just not everything in each picture. Using a smaller aperture will give you more depth of field. If you use a single focus point in the center, you can decide what will be in sharpest focus.
Dec 7, 2016 06:58:05 #
Looking at your camera info the first photo shows your camera's focus point is on the front door of the cake house, when in fact the jelly bean tree well behind the house is in focus. I would say your lens is not focusing properly and is front focusing. The fact that your aperture is wide open doesn't help, but that aside, your lens is not focusing were it should be..
Dec 7, 2016 07:27:10 #
The EXIF data says ISO 1400 for the first picture and 1250 for the second one; 1/60th speed and fairly wide open aperture. All this add up to a fuzzy image. Get the ISO down, speed up, and the aperture closer to f/5.6 or f/8. A tripod and 2 second delay is a must. To eliminate the camera mis-focusing, use manual focus. I'll bet you see a big difference.
Dec 7, 2016 07:30:12 #
Linary
Loc: UK
rando wrote:
This is my first posting, but a lot of you asked me to post pictures that were out of focus to try to determine what the problem may be with my Tamron 16-300 zoom. I trust you will be kind but informative. Obviously, these are not my best photos.
1st image:
1/60th sec at f 3.8
ISO 1400 (not ISO 200)
Flash did fire
Focal length 26mm
Focus distance is reported at 31.5" (0.79m)
Depth of field: (29.1" - 34.3" - total = 5.18"
You are quite close on the closest focussing distance of 15.5" which may or may not have an effect on the sharpness (especially towards the edges).
What is really puzzling me is the enormous amount of grain or noise in the image. This is really contributing to the "unsharp" effect. From what I've heard, the D5100 does not generate that much noise at ISO 1400, so what is it and where is it from? Over sharpening artefacts perhaps from Picasa?
For your amusement I have appended a Focus Points image - I would not read too much into it, though, you may have recomposed after half pressing the shutter.
I have this lens but cannot shoot at 1/60 hand held and get crisp images - even when using flash if the ambient lighting is reasonably high. It's a different story on a tripod though, and I find the sweetest spot is using a focal length of 240mm at f/8 with an ISO of 100 or 200.
I have added the focus points as recorded for the 2nd image
Dec 7, 2016 07:41:57 #
I think you question has been answered well above so welcome to the forum. Keep practicing, your depth of field (DOF) is tricky and something you need to work on. With shots like these you may want to learn how to do stacks as well.
Dec 7, 2016 07:43:56 #
martinfisherphoto wrote:
Martin - I don't have software to see the focus points on a Nikon body. Where is the focus point reporting for the tea cup image? I also can't tell the camera mode. But, since both have the flash, 1/60th shutter, and the aperture wide open, I'm thinking some sort of auto?Looking at your camera info the first photo shows your camera's focus point is on the front door of the cake house, when in fact the jelly bean tree well behind the house is in focus. I would say your lens is not focusing properly and is front focusing. The fact that your aperture is wide open doesn't help, but that aside, your lens is not focusing were it should be..
Rando - please provide some comments on your expectations. Your camera settings are preventing these two examples from being "in focus" across the entire frame of the image. What that your desire? Or, do you need a better understanding of how the f-stop impacts the depth of field within an image? I'd suggest re-shooting both images in aperture priority at f/8 thru f/11 and make another assessment of the "in focus" aspects of the results using this lens.
Dec 7, 2016 08:07:37 #
There's no info in the first image of where the focus point is. Clearly in the second image focus point is just above the door, which means camera is front focusing in my book. No info on the shooting mode, assume auto..
CHG_CANON wrote:
Martin - I don't have software to see the focus po... (show quote)
Dec 7, 2016 08:21:43 #
Linary
Loc: UK
martinfisherphoto wrote:
There's no info in the first image of where the focus point is. Clearly in the second image focus point is just above the door, which means camera is front focusing in my book. No info on the shooting mode, assume auto..
I have never held focal point software in high regard, but it seems that my LR plug-in is very different to the software you are using. See the two downloads above which show the focus points in both images.
edit: Exif data reads "Exposure Mode - Auto"
Dec 7, 2016 09:02:42 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.