burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

While there are many good answers here, it's impossible to tell which ones might help you, without seeing sample images!

I have a very long list of things to check on my "what went wrong" list for "fuzzy photos taken with telephoto lenses." Most of them don't have anything to do with the lens itself, but relate to user errors. Here are just a few:

Don't use vibration reduction or image stabilization when using a tripod.

Do use a tripod or a monopod when using a long lens.

Use the highest resolution and the lowest JPEG compression, and/or the largest RAW file size.

Be sure the lens is clean — both front and rear elements.

Avoid filters unless you need them. They reduce sharpness just a smidge.

Use a lens hood to avoid as much flare as possible.

Use 1/focal length of the lens as the lowest shutter speed when hand-holding. (IS or VR can improve this by one or two stops, depending on the situation — and how much caffeine you've had!)

Limit your caffeine intake before photography!

Use manual focus when you can, to avoid AF shifts and errors.

Stop down two or three stops from wide open. Most lenses are sharpest there. You avoid coma, astigmatism, chromatic aberrations, and diffraction limiting of sharpness by working in a "sweet spot" aperture. Adjust ISO and shutter to compensate/achieve correct exposure.

If your camera body allows, make micro-focus adjustments for the lens you are using. If not, take body and lens to a service center and have this adjusted for you.

If you are cropping images in software, use the software's appropriate settings for achieving best quality. These vary from application to application; check your manual or help screens. Consider using a software tool made for re-sizing.

Lots of folks immediately jump to conclusions about lens quality, rather than trying to trace real problems with techniques. Know that long lenses have extremely shallow depth of field, especially up close, and that long zooms are best at some focal lengths and worse at others. Stop down some... Read any test reports available for your lens.

One of my favorite lenses of all time was a Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 lens for Nikon. I paid $55 for it in 1975. It was tack sharp, used wide open.

Any time I get a new piece of equipment, I run my own tests with it to determine whether it meets my needs. This also serves to help me understand its limitations, and my limitations in working with it.

Larryb Loc: Burlington, Ontario

Why would removing U/V filter make a difference?

coot Loc: Evansville, IN.

I always use manual focus if possible when I'm wanting a quality shot. Auto focus works great when it works. The problem is it does not always focus the lens on what you want it to. It fails most often on dark and or complex subjects. Also consider the depth of field you want and set your aperture as required. With that in mind you may also want to consider forward or back focus to best accomplish your goal.

Mgpfonner

If all the other hints fail, try a tripod.

jbaird Loc: Coatesville, Pa

Here's the pic in jpg

Nuthatch

(Download)

jbaird Loc: Coatesville, Pa

Well now that its posted as jpeg, it looks terrible.

dynaquest1 Loc: Austin, Texas

I take issue with this assumption. Though I have Nikon 1.4 and 2.8 lenses, I've taken perfectly sharp photos with other lenses including the VR 70-300 mentioned by the OP. For me, the good glass is more about light gathering than sharpness...but that's just me.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Well... that depends on how you look at it. It looks like you have more of a picture than you think, and are expecting something unrealistic.

First, you shot that with a 70-300mm /f/4.5-5.6 lens at the maximum zoom, 300mm, with the aperture wide open at f/5.6. That was with the ISO set to 640 and with a shutter speed of 1/2000.

It displays exactly the characteristics one would expect, though I'm amazed at how sharp it is! It has a relatively shallow Depth of Field due to the f/5.6 aperture. And it would be sharper if you'd stopped down to f/8. Given the shutter speed of 1/2000, you could easily have stopped down and used 1/1000. (Granted you were probably expecting to also shoot when the bird is moving, so a higher shutter speed than is actually necessary for this particular shot is reasonable. But 1/1000 would be enough for what you were looking for.)

Also that lens is much sharper at less that maximum zoom. Try 250mm instead of 300mm, and that will also add sharpness.

Below is a 600x480 pixel 100% crop from you image. If you view it with a web browser in a 1200x1200 window you are seeing it at 200%. Note that it does look fairly "sharp".

Two characteristics that are of interest though, are the amount of noise in the background just to the left and above the bird, and the bokeh. The noise can be dealt with by careful post processing (mask out the background and give it a slight blur). The bokeh is really awful with that lens! Look at all of the very out of focus branches in the background, and notice how they all get split into two lines instead of just one. I don't know if using 250mm will help that, but it might. Otherwise, that's life with consumer grade lenses...

But the main point really is that if you look at this crop it's not that bad at all! I think you might be execting everything in the frame to be sharp, but with an aperture of f/5.6 on a 300mm lens the laws of physics say you won't get it.

600x480 100% crop

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Even the very best filters are additional glass that light must traverse on its way to the sensor. If there are any imperfections in them, they detract from the purity of the image. At the very least, they introduce additional potential for flare, as light bounces off the surface of the lens, back onto the back of the filter, then back through the lens.

Most of the time, filters do not harm the image significantly. UV filters are great for reducing haze in distant landscape scenes. They also protect front lens elements during handling, or in adverse conditions such as photographing motocross racing on a muddy track.

But in the case of photographing backlit or side-lit subjects in daylight, or other high brightness, high intensity, or high specularity circumstances, they can add a significant amount of flare to an image, or reduce overall contrast.

Remember, in digital imaging, sharpness is created by establishing crisp tonal boundaries — the contrast where one edge transitions to another. Anything that detracts from that affects perceived sharpness.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Excellent analysis! From the looks of this, I'd say the point of focus was off, ever-so-slightly — perhaps a few inches in front of the bird. f/8, or even f/11, would have worked better, by providing additional depth of field. Manual focus might have helped, too.

Getting a lot closer also would have helped. The bird is a tiny fraction of the original scene. Using more pixels to represent your subject is always preferable to using fewer...

Birding is hard work, though. The critters always seem so shy! Perhaps a visit to a bird feeder store is the answer here.

jbaird Loc: Coatesville, Pa

I have a feeding station set up and am in the process of creating a platform with branches, etc. to use. I'll get plenty close.

The picture I posted is just an attempt to see what the limits of the lens are and learning how and what not to do.

jbaird Loc: Coatesville, Pa

Thanks for the time you spent in looking at the picture. I wasn't really worried about the background when I took the picture. I just rushed outside an shot the first bird I saw in order to post an image with the D3 for comparison.

When I shoot for an image, I worry a lot about the position, distance, background, etc. I'm just not ready to start shooting for keepers. I'm still learning.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Sounds like you have a good plan. If you can lock everything down except the birds, you'll have a better chance of getting really clean images.

I used to shoot film images of birds with a manual 135mm lens on a teleconverter, back in the early 1970s. The lens was cheap, the converter was cheaper, and I learned that I had to use exactly one aperture (f/5.6 on the lens; effectively f/11 with the converter), and that I had to use a tripod, 400-speed film, and an appropriate shutter speed.

I got quite decent results, so long as I had enough light and stuck to my formula. We had an elaborate feeder, with lots of room for lots of birds to perch, and an even more elaborate system for ejecting squirrels. (Feeding raw peanuts in the shell to squirrels on the ground below the bird feeder was a good working strategy, too.)

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

Are you using Live View, mirror lock up or mirror delay? At 300 mm mirror shutter will distort the photo especially with rapid. Shutter speed. Agree to turn off VR at that shutter speed the little control motors will create blur. VR meant to extend shutter speed shooting not stabilize at fast shutter.

Shooting wide open also a problem. The sweet spot for most lenses is 2 stops down from max. Your D3 will do fine with higher ISO. Likely a problem with D 200. Lens performance is poorest at max and minimal f stops

Tripod?

AF fine tuning may help but my experience is that Nikon lenses are pretty much on target..sharpening raw files s helps. PS CC has new sharpening filter to reduce motion blur. It's magical.

timothyf7

Are using a tripod with the stabilizer left on?