waykee7 Loc: Cortez, Colorado

I agree with Bill, this is a focusing problem, not a lens problem. I forgot what your shutter speed was, but it could have been complicated by a little camera movement. f8 should have been plenty sharp.

I have that same kit lens, and while the professional testing doesn't rate it comparably to high end lenses, for 100 bucks I'm delighted with it. Maybe I'm just getting long in the tooth and relatively new to digital, but I think about the 43-86mm Nikkor that was dreadful in the 1970s, and I could kiss this little cheapie 18-55!

morrisb Loc: adelaide south australia

Your a poet and don't know it!

Lens Cap Loc: The Cold North Coast

I side with MtnMan, I think the picture is too busy, nothing for us to focus on. Try the same test on a subject that is un cluttered

liv2paddle Loc: Wall, NJ

Light light light this picture needs great light too contrasty which indicates to me late morning or early afternoon :-) Its not the lens or the camera so there is only one element left the photographer!

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

The scene was chosen to test the 18-55's ability to capture a cluttered high contrast scene. It does that well but lacks sharpness for two reasons, one, optical quality which i can not fix and two, mechanical build which i corrected.

The 3 images on page 5 show the mis-behavior of my lens and the corrective action taken.

The 18-55 serves its purpose as an inexpensive introductory lens but most experienced shooters choose to replace it as soon as they can afford to.

liv2paddle Loc: Wall, NJ

Don't get to hung up on lens go out and learn what this lens can do before you spend lots of money on a new one. I used that lens for three years on a D80 and got some great shots with it. I guess my point was go find beautiful light not contrasty horrible light and you will get beautful images no matter what lens you use...that has been my experience! Happy shooting!

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

already had the $1600 24-120/4 VRII Nikkor for my D3100 which works pretty well so didn't have to buy any new glass. With the $1000 70-200/4.5 nikon and $2000 300/2.8 Tamron in my bag, my long lens needs are covered.

If i hit the lottery i might consider getting some good glass like the $20,000 Zeiss 70-200/2.9 but for now i'll just limp along with the rest of the unwashed masses...

You are right. having lots of light does help a lens perform its best and shooting good digital requires close attention to details. Its ironic that the digital sensor that made point-n-shoot possible also places so much demand on the photographer.

Lordac

To really judge it would be better to see the full sized composition the 1000x1500 size makes the view a little more difficult. I think the highlights that Bill H added to the wood portion of the trees (not the leaves) helped set off the leaves better. I used to watch that guy Bill Alexander on PBS who did oil painting. He always said you need dark to show light. It's still true here. The untouched original has no true focal point.
If the center group of leaves was your focus, better to get in a little closer. PP definitely helps but is much easier to control in RAW.

Isn't it wonderful that the beauty the human eye can take in is so varied. We try to capture that moment in time with our time machines, and sometime we succeed and sometimes we don't. Myself, I love what I call Nature photography, it could be a leaf, or a garden in front of someone's home, a bird or a mountain. Our job is to use what skills we possess to convey that thing of beauty we see at that exact moment in time so others can enjoy it as well.

This composition is an excellent test for the kit 18-55 and it's limitations. Myself, I use that lens only for a wider field of view shot, or group photo's.

Lordac

And now that I've read most of the replies, I see that you've solved the issue. I am interested in how you shimmed the lens. Maybe a video or a How To guide is forthcoming? Having read most of the thread I'll make the same check of my 18-55.

Lens Cap Loc: The Cold North Coast

I too would like to know how you shimmed the lens, and yet how you decided how much to shim it.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

i inserted metal foil strips between lens and focus sleeve to determine size and then gave barrel to the boys in the plating department. They have a chemical bath that plated a layer of copper onto the plastic to bring the diameter up.

I tried increasing the diameter of a piece of PVC pipe using thinned model paint and an airbrush but the thinnest layer i could make was on the order of 3 mills, much to thick.

A buddy at a plastics manufacturing firm showed me the slickest trick yet. He applied a heated paper clip to the plastic and the displaced material formed a ridge which performed the same result and had the side benefit in that you could reduce the diameter with a quick wipe with 1000 grit sandpaper if you went to far.

If you're thinking of doing this your self, keep in mind we are talking about an increase 1/4 the thickness of a piece of paper, 1/3 the thickness of a human hair. The error we are trying to correct is a 1 pixel shift in a 6000 pixel wide image. A nice healthy heart beat can cause 5 times that much error.

gdewey Loc: Robertsdale, Alabama

I shoot the D7100 and love the camera. I keep my D7000 in the bag with an 18-200mm on it for a carry around. Might I suggest using your feet more with the 18-55 to help with the composition? I had a difficult time finding a pof, and therefore found myself scanning the photo, looking for what it might have been. A story is not evident to me as a result. Could the EV comp have been 1.0 and not 10? I also use a single point of focus in conjunction with AF, and very seldom use MF because I shoot a lot of nature, where time is a real issue. i am new here and apologize if I ramble...

Lordac

I get what your saying! I've done some machining in my younger days, sometimes down to +/- .0005. I guess what I was saying was that maybe a nice video "how to" guide, maybe on a lens with some bad glass, would go a long way. However, then I realize that many would probably not have the exacting patience it would take to do the job properly and the result would be ruining what would be for most people a perfectly good lens.

effeight

If you were to submit the picture to be published, what title would you give it - pretty leaves? As many have said and I agree, the picture is technically sound but doesn't say anything. I have chips full of pictures that have the same fault. Forgive my impertinence but I wish there was a subject, leaf, branch, hand, face.... in the foreground the the "pretty leaves in bokehland. However, I still like pretty leaves.

Fred in Boise Loc: Boise, Idaho

You need more zoom in to your focus leaf to give more depth or even a slight tunnel effect.
IMHO