Frustrated in a way

L

Lawrence

Senior Member
Bear with me for a while ...

I love my D7100 but for some time now I have felt I am not producing photos as sharp as I would like them to be.

I recently had the pleasure of handling a D500 and my head has been in a spin ever since. But I cannot afford one at this stage - or rather don't think it is an absolute priority because I know I haven't yet come close to mastering my D7100.

But ...

I got to thinking that my lens collection is a bit sloppy and neccesitates continual juggling for individual shots and I am never quite sure which is the sharpest.

Now I am thinking ...

What if I sell my 18-105 (seldom used these days) my 70-300 and my Sigma 10-20 and use the proceeds to buy the nikkor 16-80 f2.8 kit lens that comes with the D500?

Has anyone tried this combination and if so whith what results?
 
R

RobV

Senior Member
It certainly looks like a nice lens! I take it you don't use your 300mm often enough to miss it?

I am still new at all this, but B&H's website has me confused. Perhaps they made a mistake?! :)

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

  • F Mount Lens/DX Format
  • 24-120mm (35mm Equivalent)

How can a DX lens give the 1.5 factor as a FX lens?

Sorry you can't afford a D500 body (or better yet, kit!), then you would not have to swap lenses so often!
 
L

Lawrence

Senior Member
RobV said:
It certainly looks like a nice lens! I take it you don't use your 300mm often enough to miss it?

I am still new at all this, but B&H's website has me confused. Perhaps they made a mistake?! :)

PRODUCT HIGHLIGHTS

  • F Mount Lens/DX Format
  • 24-120mm (35mm Equivalent)

How can a DX lens give the 1.5 factor as a FX lens?

Sorry you can't afford a D500 body (or better yet, kit!), then you would not have to swap lenses so often!
Click to expand...

No confusion there.

The 16-80 is a DX lens so the equivalent FX lens would be 24-120. I do most of my work in this range.

If i went this route I would eventually need to get something with reach but it would be a substantial upgrade on the 70-300 and i am prepared to save and wait for it. I don't think I would miss the 70-300 during that time.
 
kevy73

kevy73

Senior Member
Can you hire the 16-80 and see how it performs on your D7100. Just to make sure it is worth selling all your other kit.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Nothing I've seen from the 16-80 f/2.8 would lead me to believe it would be a particularly stellar performer. I've shot it some and it's a very good lens, but it's not a great lens. The lenses that really blow me away on the D7100 are the Sigma Art series f/1.4 primes, the Nikon 85mm 1.8G, the Tamron 70-300mm f/2.8 Di VC USD and the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC. Probably not the range of lenses you're looking for but that's been my experience.
 
R

RobV

Senior Member
Lawrence said:
If i went this route I would eventually need to get something with reach but it would be a substantial upgrade on the 70-300 and i am prepared to save and wait for it. I don't think I would miss the 70-300 during that time.
Click to expand...

Yea, I have my heart set on the 200-500 f5.6, but at twice the weight of my old 300mm f4 screw focus, I can't believe it will be a handheld lens, despite the reviews.
 
S

Sandpatch

Senior Member
Not sure if this thought fits the situation or not, but as my eyes age, I find that variation in the sharpness of my (DX) photos is sometimes simply my eyes. I'll sometimes be working post processing and thinking that my shot wasn't sharp, but I then expand the image on my monitor to look more closely at portions of the image and find that sharpness is perfectly fine across the entire photo. Other times, all appears to be well and is.

Just thought I'd mention this, as my vision is not perfectly consistent at each sitting.
 
I

Ironwood

Senior Member
I am at work at the moment, so this post will be short, will do a longer one later.
Does your 35 f1.8 give you images that are sharp enough ? I ask because it should be as sharp or sharper than any zoom.
Also I read somewhere that the new 16-80 is no better IQ wise than the old 16-85, but at a higher price.
 
L

Lawrence

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
Nothing I've seen from the 16-80 f/2.8 would lead me to believe it would be a particularly stellar performer. I've shot it some and it's a very good lens, but it's not a great lens. The lenses that really blow me away on the D7100 are the Sigma Art series f/1.4 primes, the Nikon 85mm 1.8G, the Tamron 70-300mm f/2.8 Di VC USD and the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC. Probably not the range of lenses you're looking for but that's been my experience.
Click to expand...

Paul have you tried the new (well new in New Zealand) Tamron range that is supposedly the answer to the Sigma art series?
They come in 80mm, 45mm and (I think) 35mm all f1.8

I've used the 45mm and was blown away with how sharp it is
 
L

Lawrence

Senior Member
Ironwood said:
I am at work at the moment, so this post will be short, will do a longer one later.
Does your 35 f1.8 give you images that are sharp enough ? I ask because it should be as sharp or sharper than any zoom.
Also I read somewhere that the new 16-80 is no better IQ wise than the old 16-85, but at a higher price.
Click to expand...

Brad - this is a good question and one I struggle to answer as my 35mm (and 50 fr that matter) are sharp the one day and not the next. I've been messing around with the fine tuning on both to try and get some consistency. This is all part of my frustration
 
L

Lawrence

Senior Member
kevy73 said:
The guys in Progear in Newmarket in Auckland are awesome. Can you get to them or is that too far?
Click to expand...

I can get there quite easily.
People say the same thing about the shop I work in here in Hamilton but we only have the kit lens that comes with the D500 and the boss would be reluctant to let people try that on another body (I think)
I'll ask on Monday when I am next working
 
S

SHAkers718

Senior Member
Sandpatch said:
Not sure if this thought fits the situation or not, but as my eyes age, I find that variation in the sharpness of my (DX) photos is sometimes simply my eyes. I'll sometimes be working post processing and thinking that my shot wasn't sharp, but I then expand the image on my monitor to look more closely at portions of the image and find that sharpness is perfectly fine across the entire photo. Other times, all appears to be well and is.

Just thought I'd mention this, as my vision is not perfectly consistent at each sitting.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some of the photos I've actually printed turned out much sharper than I thought they would.
 
I

Ironwood

Senior Member
Lawrence said:
Brad - this is a good question and one I struggle to answer as my 35mm (and 50 fr that matter) are sharp the one day and not the next. I've been messing around with the fine tuning on both to try and get some consistency. This is all part of my frustration
Click to expand...
OK, are you sure a new lens is going to solve this problem, the 35 & 50 should give you tack sharp photos. Have you thought about the possibility this could be a camera issue ?
 
L

Lawrence

Senior Member
Ironwood said:
OK, are you sure a new lens is going to solve this problem, the 35 & 50 should give you tack sharp photos. Have you thought about the possibility this could be a camera issue ?
Click to expand...

Yes i have but discarded that thought. Probably because i don't want to believe that is the issue.

I sometimes (mostly) think it is me being overly picky
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Lawrence said:
Yes i have but discarded that thought. Probably because i don't want to believe that is the issue.

I sometimes (mostly) think it is me being overly picky
Click to expand...

I fight with the sharpness issue all the time but for the most part it is me, my monitor, or poor shooting. I have been working on better shooting techniques a lot lately and am liking my results better as time goes on. Less post processing and less sharpening now. A little faster shutter speed is helping me. go double instead of 1 times the shutter speed/length of lens. i also have been adding a little more contrast to my photos and that shows the sharpness better in my opinion. Not go much as to lose detail or make you think it is to contrasty.

Work on getting what you have to the best it can be. One thing I did find out was that my 18-105 was not that great a performer and when I just moved to the 18-140 it looked better. The 24-120 looked great on the D7100 but I really missed the range between 18-23. BUt going to the D750 with it gave me the reach I needed.

Don't try to buy sharpness or IQ until you have exhausted the best you can get out of what you have.
 
F

Fat Fingers

Banned
You have not said if you are a RAW or JPEG shooter ....if its JPEG and you have not put the sharpness up into the range +7 to +9 then you will be unhappy....If it raw then you have not don't the PP right though in all scenarios you must have the fine focus adjust spot on.
Agree that the 18-140 is far superior and if you need longer just crop ...
 
Top