good "walk around" lens

[480sparky]

You have to do post processing when you shoot RAW. These look fine considering you have not processed them correctly. There is no problem with these pictures. I spent 2 minutes processing them from already resized files.

Holy cow.... looks like to ran the Sharpening slider to RedLine!

 

[rece2000]

Do a simple conversion to JPEG, then post them on a hosting site like Flickr or PhotoBucket.

I can see the hair on her forehead in the second shot is much much sharper than her eyes. That tells me you missed focus. You may have tried to focus on the eyes, but something changed.

I uploaded these to photobucket. Not sure if I am doing this right or not, so we'll give it a try. I am mainly concerned about the quality my images seem to have whenever I use my Tamron lens. As for the focus on the second one, I had the focus point on her eye. Whether or not the camera actually focused there is another issue. I have contacted Nikon about this already and they recommended I send it in to their factory to have it looked at based on pictures I uploaded for them. I am trying to determine if I have a camera issue or if it is strictly a lens issue. Not sure I will be able to determine that online or not. It's just too hard for people to see what I can see on my computer.

 

[rece2000]

I uploaded these to photobucket. Not sure if I am doing this right or not, so we'll give it a try. I am mainly concerned about the quality my images seem to have whenever I use my Tamron lens. As for the focus on the second one, I had the focus point on her eye. Whether or not the camera actually focused there is another issue. I have contacted Nikon about this already and they recommended I send it in to their factory to have it looked at based on pictures I uploaded for them. I am trying to determine if I have a camera issue or if it is strictly a lens issue. Not sure I will be able to determine that online or not. It's just too hard for people to see what I can see on my computer.

let's try this link.

sbj20031's Library | Photobucket

 

[Horoscope Fish]

Are you shooting RAW or .JPG?

If you're shooting JPG you might need adjust the in-camera "Sharpening" setting. This might be a good test to run, even if you primarily shoot RAW. Switch to, and then shoot, some JPG files and see what you get once you've adjusted the sharpening in-camera.

To check/adjust the setting, go into the Shooting Menu (camera icon), highlight "Set Picture Control", right-click once using the four-way button and highlight whatever setting you use here (Standard, Vivid, whatever). Right-click one more time and drop down to highlight the "Sharpening" setting and move the slider to +7. Be sure to press "OK" to save the adjustment.


.....

 

[rece2000]

Are you shooting RAW or .JPG?

If you're shooting JPG you might need adjust the in-camera "Sharpening" setting. This might be a good test to run, even if you primarily shoot RAW. Switch to, and then shoot, some JPG files and see what you get once you've adjusted the sharpening in-camera.

To check/adjust the setting, go into the Shooting Menu (camera icon), highlight "Set Picture Control", right-click once using the four-way button and highlight whatever setting you use here (Standard, Vivid, whatever). Right-click one more time and drop down to highlight the "Sharpening" setting and move the slider to +7. Be sure to press "OK" to save the adjustment.


.....

i am shooting in RAW currently, but I did read about this default sharpening in other posts about this camera and did change it. However, I still did not see a difference between the 2. When I increased the sharpening, it just gave the pictures a weird, fake look. For the wedding, since I wasn't sure, I set it to shoot RAW and JPEG FINE. When i looked at the photos in my software afterwards, there was no difference. I don't know if it's really a sharpening issues I have, like I originally thought. It's just a quality of the picture issue. To me, they just do not look "right". Not how they looked with my d60 and kit lenses. Edges were real crisp and the quality was like looking at the subject in person. Now, it all looks "digital". I don't know how else to describe it.

 

[nickt]

The girl by herself looks great, but very shallow depth of field. The group was shot at 17mm. I'm far from an expert, but that would not be not my choice for a full body portrait from 5 feet away. It doesn't give a good look and doesn't lend itself to a nice crisp shot. I would try a similar shot from a greater distance somewhere in 35-50mm and see what you think.

 

[480sparky]

Load the unedited image into View NX2. You will have the option to see which focus point(s) were used.

 

[480sparky]

..... For the wedding, since I wasn't sure, I set it to shoot RAW and JPEG FINE. When i looked at the photos in my software afterwards, there was no difference. .....

There won't be any difference between them until you start to edit them. The more heavy-handed your editing is, the more you'll see the differences.

 

[pedroj]

I am looking for suggestions for a good "walk around" lens for my d5100. I currently have a Tamron 17-50mm that I initially loved, but I can't quite determine if the image quality is really bad because of that lens or my camera. If it turns out to be the lens, can anyone give me a good all purpose lens that would be similar? Nikon makes a 17-55 f2.8 I can get new for $1300. Was hoping for something less than $1000. Found a used for $830 through B&H. Any experience on buying used lenses? That makes me a little nervous as well. If I am having image quality issues, can anyone educate me on whether it would be primarily the camera or the lens that would be causing it? I am getting very frustrated. I have the Nikkor 50mm and 85mm, and they seem to be ok, for the most part, but are still sometimes hit or miss. Thanks!

I think the only problem with these is a narrow depth of field...

 

[rece2000]

Load the unedited image into View NX2. You will have the option to see which focus point(s) were used.

Yes, I have done that. I always use the center point and recompose. It's what I was instructed to do in a class. I'm sorry, I'm starting to get off track with the intent of my original post. Back to that. Bottom line, I am going to send my camera in to Nikon for them to check for focus issues, as it does often times appear to focus on something other than the eyes of my subjects, which I always focus on. I think my Tamron lens just does not have the good optical quality I am looking for, so am going to try to sell and purchase a new walkaround lens--Nikkor. It's hard to get this across online like this, but is so obvious to me when examining them on my computer--you need to be able to zoom in to see. You had mentioned the 18-105. I wish it had a larger aperture, but I guess I can make do. My question then is, would this be a good lens for landscapes? Not strictly landscape photography, but for beautiful scenery. We are going to the caribbean next February and I want to have a good lens for capturing the scenery, plus just the everyday "posing in front of neat things" shots... Does this lens offer more than just the additional focal length than the kit lens I received with my camera (the 18-55)? Or, should I keep my 18-55, along with my 50mm, 85mm, and 50-200mm and maybe invest in a wider angle lens? Just afraid to get a lens like the 10-24mm with being primarily a portrait photographer. I don't want to get a lens that is "too specialized" that I won't really be able to use it on a regular basis... but do want something that would be good for general photography and the occational landscape. Have I explained your head off yet?

 

[480sparky]

...... Have I explained your head off yet?

Sounds like you are itching to buy a lens, but have no idea why or what to get.

Fix your current issue first, then determine what your current lenses aren't doing for you. That will make the decision to buy a lens, and what to buy, much simpler.

 

[brads]

I uploaded these to photobucket. Not sure if I am doing this right or not, so we'll give it a try. I am mainly concerned about the quality my images seem to have whenever I use my Tamron lens. As for the focus on the second one, I had the focus point on her eye. Whether or not the camera actually focused there is another issue. I have contacted Nikon about this already and they recommended I send it in to their factory to have it looked at based on pictures I uploaded for them. I am trying to determine if I have a camera issue or if it is strictly a lens issue. Not sure I will be able to determine that online or not. It's just too hard for people to see what I can see on my computer.

let's try this link.

sbj20031's Library | Photobucket

I had a look at the link and dowloaded both photos. Unless you edited them for uploading, they've both been reduced in size by the uploading software. More than likely. Are you shooting at the camera's full capability?

In Photoshop, they show signs of jpeg noise at a fairly small size. This is the image size info for the young girl's photo. Cheers, Brad

 

[dramtastic]

Nikon 50mm 1.8mm for streetscapes. Also used for some landscapes/still nature(trees, flowers etc). Works nicely for close portraits. Only need the d version on internal focusing bodies and AF is quick with these. About 150 bucks.
Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 dc macro os hsm. I bought this exactly for this reason(walk around). I've used this for wide angle, macro and even BIF. Soft above 150mm but I've taken many keepers with a little post work through NEX2. About $380.
Both budget options. Maybe not what you are after but
might be worthwhile options for others.