Focusing issues with Nikon AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 1:4 - 5.6G ED DX lens

Bojanen

New member
Hello Nikonites.

I have a weird issue and I am not sure if it is the lens, the camera or me.
I am using a D3200 with Nikon AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 1:4 - 5.6G ED DX lens.
I take pictures of beautiful birds just about 25-28 feet distance.
The shots when reviewed in the monitor in playback mode look just fine but if I zoom-in (pressing the lens with the plus sign in the middle button) the pictures start to get blurry and after pressing the button 4-5 times the pictures look really bad. They look out of focus and extremely granular.
I have experimented with several things:
Instead of shooting through the room window I opened it allowing the lens to be directly outside (it was cold but I survived!!).
I re-did the
diopter adjustment...it is very crisp.
I switched to
Manual focus.
I switched to
Advanced Exposure mode selecting A. I also increased the ISO to 800 which allows me for a 27f or 29f (the depth of field should be great with these f stops) and still being able to use a very high shutter speed.
All with the same results.
I then decided to leave the birds alone for a minute or so, and I took a couple of shots of the tree itself, which is a very still subject!! In playback mode the bark is extremely out of focus when I magnify the picture with the zoom-in button.
All of the above does not happen if I use the 18-55mm lens.

If you have any suggestion I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks!!
 

AC016

Senior Member
Hello Nikonites.

I have a weird issue and I am not sure if it is the lens, the camera or me.
I am using a D3200 with Nikon AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 1:4 - 5.6G ED DX lens.
I take pictures of beautiful birds just about 25-28 feet distance.
The shots when reviewed in the monitor in playback mode look just fine but if I zoom-in (pressing the lens with the plus sign in the middle button) the pictures start to get blurry and after pressing the button 4-5 times the pictures look really bad. They look out of focus and extremely granular.
I have experimented with several things:
Instead of shooting through the room window I opened it allowing the lens to be directly outside (it was cold but I survived!!).
I re-did the
diopter adjustment...it is very crisp.
I switched to
Manual focus.
I switched to
Advanced Exposure mode selecting A. I also increased the ISO to 800 which allows me for a 27f or 29f (the depth of field should be great with these f stops) and still being able to use a very high shutter speed.
All with the same results.
I then decided to leave the birds alone for a minute or so, and I took a couple of shots of the tree itself, which is a very still subject!! In playback mode the bark is extremely out of focus when I magnify the picture with the zoom-in button.
All of the above does not happen if I use the 18-55mm lens.

If you have any suggestion I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks!!


Include some photos please.
 

J-see

Senior Member
How are the shots when you import them on your computer?

What format are you shooting? JPEG or NEF? If JPEG, what quality and size?
 

J-see

Senior Member
Btw, the 27f and 29f you are mentioning, is that the Aperture setting? I don't really get that part. If, that's pretty extreme for shooting birds and such and won't do sharpness much good.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Lots of potential here to compromise sharpness.

1. The 55-200mm is an OK lens, but not known for its sharpness.
2. Just about every zoom on the planet, including yours, will suffer a loss of sharpness at the extremes, so shooting at 200mm will compromise sharpness slightly.
3. While you'll get plenty of depth of field at f22 and above, diffraction due to the small aperture will reduce sharpness, and this usually starts at around f16 or so.
4. ISO 800 should be plenty low enough on the noise scale with the D3200, but if you're getting over ISO 1600 then that can start producing noise with small subjects like birds, so try not to go above that.

So, not understanding exactly what you're saying regarding the zooming in and whatnot, try shooting with your aperture at f/8 to f/11, which should give you more than enough DoF. That's probably killing your sharpness more than anything. Then, make sure your shutter speed is at least 1/320sec and turn off your VR. That should give you as sharp a photo as you'll get.
 

Bojanen

New member
Hello J-see.

Thanks for your reply.

A couple of answers:
The Format: Image Quality is JPEG Normal - Image Size is Medium.
I have not looked at the pictures on my computer yet. They looked so bad I didn't even bother. However your recommedation is very good and I'll try it. I will report on it probably tomorrow.
As far as the 27 - 29 f stops it was an attempt at getting very good depth of field as I am not sure if I am dealing with sharpness or focus issues.
It was achieved by going to A and selecting the f stop with the Command Dial.
I will try again and upload a couple of shots.
Thank you very much
 

J-see

Senior Member
Hello J-see.

Thanks for your reply.

A couple of answers:
The Format: Image Quality is JPEG Normal - Image Size is Medium.
I have not looked at the pictures on my computer yet. They looked so bad I didn't even bother. However your recommedation is very good and I'll try it. I will report on it probably tomorrow.
As far as the 27 - 29 f stops it was an attempt at getting very good depth of field as I am not sure if I am dealing with sharpness or focus issues.
It was achieved by going to A and selecting the f stop with the Command Dial.
I will try again and upload a couple of shots.
Thank you very much

I don't know what focal length you were shooting but f/27 or higher is overkill when you shoot birds. Besides macro I would not know when such values are used. Like Jake said, you'll suffer diffraction which is exactly the opposite of what you intended.

If light was lower or the environment was dark, it is possible the LCD screen looks grainy, especially when you adjust the focus. I'm shooting at nights which magnifies the problem but there, the more I zoom with the LCD, often the noisier and unsharp it gets. What looks crisp full sized can look funky zoomed into. I never have that problem during the day but when light is low it can be annoying. The sensor is also not always as responsive to changes during low light which is visible on the LCD. Or maybe it isn't as much the sensor as it is the conversion of the data to what you see on your screen.

But it doesn't affect the sharpness in the shot itself.
 
Last edited:
Hello J-see.

Thanks for your reply.

A couple of answers:
The Format: Image Quality is JPEG Normal - Image Size is Medium.
I have not looked at the pictures on my computer yet. They looked so bad I didn't even bother. However your recommedation is very good and I'll try it. I will report on it probably tomorrow.
As far as the 27 - 29 f stops it was an attempt at getting very good depth of field as I am not sure if I am dealing with sharpness or focus issues.
It was achieved by going to A and selecting the f stop with the Command Dial.
I will try again and upload a couple of shots.
Thank you very much



If you are shooting JPG I would suggest that you use the Fine>>Large setting and also set your camera for better sharpness.



Go into your Menus and highlight the "Shooting" menu (the camera icon)

Drop down to "Picture Controls" and click right one time.

From here, highlight "Standard" and then click right one time.

From this settings menu, increase the "Sharpness" setting to "7".

Drop down and increase the "Saturation" setting +1 notch on the slider.

Press "OK" to exit the menus and you're done.



 

Redtail55

Senior Member
I have the D3200 and its capable of taking good pictures of birds but you need to be at f8 or f5.6 or so and use matrix metering and ISO 800 which will give you more than enough shutter speed . As a side note I've recently switched to a D300s and taking bird pictures is a lot more pleasant now , the D3200 just isn't fast enough with Autofocus .JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

r00ster

Senior Member
First Post

I guess the reason I registered here today is simply to vent. I wish I had something constructive to add. But I don't.

I am very disappointed with the Nikkor 55-200 zoom lens. I feel as though I got 'zoomed' by the positive hype I read on line before I made with the transaction. I didn't read far enough down the pages; I suppose.

Here are my Details/Comments on 2 recent shots copied at imgur addresses that follow.
One more thing: this lens eats batteries like my dog eats potato chips.

"Auto Focus with Nikon 55-200mm lens unreliable. I hear it struggling for several secs and result is very poor image/clarity. Auto Focus ON. VR ON. Polarizing Filter used. A sturdy tripod was used."


Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet
Mt. Baker from Boundary Bay, BC - Imgur

Let this be a caution to nature photogs. Pic quality doesn't compare all that favorably up against my Kodak 110 Instamatic I got in college back in 64.
 
First Post

I guess the reason I registered here today is simply to vent. I wish I had something constructive to add. But I don't.

I am very disappointed with the Nikkor 55-200 zoom lens. I feel as though I got 'zoomed' by the positive hype I read on line before I made with the transaction. I didn't read far enough down the pages; I suppose.

Here are my Details/Comments on 2 recent shots copied at imgur addresses that follow.
One more thing: this lens eats batteries like my dog eats potato chips.

"Auto Focus with Nikon 55-200mm lens unreliable. I hear it struggling for several secs and result is very poor image/clarity. Auto Focus ON. VR ON. Polarizing Filter used. A sturdy tripod was used."


Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet
Mt. Baker from Boundary Bay, BC - Imgur

Let this be a caution to nature photogs. Pic quality doesn't compare all that favorably up against my Kodak 110 Instamatic I got in college back in 64.

You do not give a lot of details here like what camera you are using it on. Please make all your comments here so no one has to leave the site to read something somewhere else.

The 55-200 is an inexpensive lens and also a slow lens. On a lower level camera you may not have enough light for it to focus that good.

I started off with the D3100 and I did have a 55-200 zoom for it. I never had a problem with battery use using that lens nor did I have any focusing problems with it as long as I used it in the appropriate shooting conditions. When I did move up to the D5100 it still worked good. Once I moved up to the D7100 I did find that the better cameras showed the lack of sharpness on the inexpensive lens and I had to buy better glass. The better the camera the better glass you need.

So if I were you I would look at how you are shooting before I started blaming the equipment.
 

r00ster

Senior Member
I tried my level to provide my equipment info on my "edit profile" page. Only part(s) would stay copied. After 4-5 attempts of hitting "Save Changes", I gave up.
BODY
Nikon D3200


LENSES
Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G VR
Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 55-200mm 1:4-5.6 G ED VR
Nikon N AF-S MICRO NIKKOR 105mm 1:28G ED VR

I provided 2 examples on imgur. Perhaps I'm overcritical, or just had unrealistic expectations. It was set on "Auto". I'll take the advice of some posters to try Manual Mode.

Prop/Details shows : f 5.6 @ 1\250 ISO 400.

In my experience, there was plenty of light, no wind and a tripod was used. I have 26
other pics taken with this lens. I haven't got one that compares favorably with my 18-55mm just by blowing it up.

Thanks for the reply. In my humble defence, lots of googling today indicates I'm far from alone in my frustration with that lens' Auto- Focus capabilities. Bearing in mind, "A poor workman blames his tools." your lens is at least a couple of years older than mine and those of many of the whiners I'm seeing online. I'm wondering if there mayn't be a production/quality control issue.
 
I tried my level to provide my equipment info on my "edit profile" page. Only part(s) would stay copied. After 4-5 attempts of hitting "Save Changes", I gave up.
BODY
Nikon D3200


LENSES
Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G VR
Nikon DX AF-S NIKKOR 55-200mm 1:4-5.6 G ED VR
Nikon N AF-S MICRO NIKKOR 105mm 1:28G ED VR

I provided 2 examples on imgur. Perhaps I'm overcritical, or just had unrealistic expectations. It was set on "Auto". I'll take the advice of some posters to try Manual Mode.

Prop/Details shows : f 5.6 @ 1\250 ISO 400.

In my experience, there was plenty of light, no wind and a tripod was used. I have 26
other pics taken with this lens. I haven't got one that compares favorably with my 18-55mm just by blowing it up.

Thanks for the reply. In my humble defence, lots of googling today indicates I'm far from alone in my frustration with that lens' Auto- Focus capabilities. Bearing in mind, "A poor workman blames his tools." your lens is at least a couple of years older than mine and those of many of the whiners I'm seeing online. I'm wondering if there mayn't be a production/quality control issue.

Post the photos here so we can see the EXIF. Again, Many of us won't go to a link to look are photos on another site. Follow the directions below for best results.

Guidelines to adding a photo to your post.

1. Resize photo to 1000px on the long side.
2. Resolution set to 72ppi (Pixels Per Inch)

These guidelines will be good for viewing on a computer but will not be good for printing. This will help safeguard your copyright.







 

r00ster

Senior Member
Don;

First, 'ta' for the tute on getting photos in forum fettle.

Thinking the issue over at some length, the root of my discontent stems from about 35 years shooting film with my favorite lens; SMC Pentax 150mm f/3.5-32; MX Body. I never had to deal with Auto Focus or Auto Exposures, much less lug a tripod about. The 290 gram 150mm performed just fine 'à la main'. And the MX's 'split image' focus screen made it easier to eyeball the subject.

The thing of it is, is, ... as suggested elsewhere, I probably should reserve judgement until I've experimented in Manual Mode. It's just that that seems to defeat the purpose of all the bells and whistles.



View attachment 224777

View attachment 224778

View attachment 224779
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Contributor
"Auto Focus with Nikon 55-200mm lens unreliable. I hear it struggling for several secs and result is very poor image/clarity. Auto Focus ON. VR ON. Polarizing Filter used. A sturdy tripod was used."

If your camera/lens is on a tripod, turn off your VR. When VR is activated and the camera is on a tripod, it will degrade the sharpness.

As was mentioned, it is a slower lens and needs ample light for focusing. I liked mine a lot, but when I bought the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, I never used the 55-200mm again. It's packed away in a camera bag. My 70-300mm is a partial stop slower than the one you are using, but when you know the light is low and the camera is having trouble with AF, switch to manual focus.
 
If your camera/lens is on a tripod, turn off your VR. When VR is activated and the camera is on a tripod, it will degrade the sharpness.

As was mentioned, it is a slower lens and needs ample light for focusing. I liked mine a lot, but when I bought the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, I never used the 55-200mm again. It's packed away in a camera bag. My 70-300mm is a partial stop slower than the one you are using, but when you know the light is low and the camera is having trouble with AF, switch to manual focus.


Also the 70-300 is a much better lens all around than the 55-200. Also the 70-300 is an FX lens.
 

r00ster

Senior Member
Don;

If your camera/lens is on a tripod, turn off your VR.
: Copy that, sensei.

When I bought the 55-200, I weighed its purported functionality against the 70-300 and decided I didn't really need the extra mm's based on 2 things: ... price difference of course, and pics already taken with the 105 macro blew up wonderfully, making the extra lens magnification superfluous for my custom of usage. The extra 100mms the 70-300 sported would force a decision to always pack a tripod or just leave both at home.

If I had it to do over again I would have gone for an f/2.8 FFL prime lens with approx 2.5-3X magnification... assuming for the moment such a lens is available. Meanwhile, I'm learning to get the most out of the 105mm micro macro... still have lots to learn.

À bientôt,
rod

p.s. Post # 15. My pics get an "Invalid Attachment" notification! 1000 pxls length/width with 72 dpi
 
Last edited:
p.s. Post # 15. My pics get an "Invalid Attachment" notification! 1000 pxls length/width with 72 dpi

Try again since if you followed the instructions correctly it would not have been an attachment.


Guidelines to adding a photo to your post.

1. Resize photo to 1000px on the long side.
2. Resolution set to 72ppi (Pixels Per Inch)

These guidelines will be good for viewing on a computer but will not be good for printing. This will help safeguard your copyright.







 

r00ster

Senior Member
Don;

I used Paint.net to get the pics conformable to your specsl: i.e., 1000 pxls, 72 dpi. I inserted/uploaded using the Insert Image Button. They appeared in Quick Reply draft as expected.

To the best of my recollection, after Select Imag(es) + Upload Imag(es) that "Image Settings" window didn't manifest itself, so I just posted the Reply. Same result his time: no Image Settings Window. The pics show up in Preview.

One more time:...
DSC_0036c.jpg

DSC_0047b.jpg

DSC_0059b.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top