Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aroy" data-source="post: 554791" data-attributes="member: 16090">For two years I have been using the Nikon 18-55 and 35mm DX, and rarely had problems with getting crisp images with them. In fact most of my bird images at 55mm are really crisp even after cropping them down to 800x800 pixes.I tried using the Nikon 70-300 AF with D3300, and could never get the same crispness at any focal length. Recently I have borrowed a friend's Tamron 70-300 macro and have shot a few hundred images. The results have been variable, but in general I find that the focus is an issue and so is the sharpness and contrast. The lens also has issues in focusing in bright backlight - bright sky shining between leaves. This has resulted in my keeper rates going down from over 90% to 10%. Even the images that are tack sharp are no match for the 18-55 crops.I was wondering is others are facing the same poor keeper rates with their lower cost lenses, or is there something wrong in my technique.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aroy, post: 554791, member: 16090"] For two years I have been using the Nikon 18-55 and 35mm DX, and rarely had problems with getting crisp images with them. In fact most of my bird images at 55mm are really crisp even after cropping them down to 800x800 pixes. I tried using the Nikon 70-300 AF with D3300, and could never get the same crispness at any focal length. Recently I have borrowed a friend's Tamron 70-300 macro and have shot a few hundred images. The results have been variable, but in general I find that the focus is an issue and so is the sharpness and contrast. The lens also has issues in focusing in bright backlight - bright sky shining between leaves. This has resulted in my keeper rates going down from over 90% to 10%. Even the images that are tack sharp are no match for the 18-55 crops. I was wondering is others are facing the same poor keeper rates with their lower cost lenses, or is there something wrong in my technique. [/QUOTE]

Verification