New 18-300mm 3.5-6.3 lens, high contrast problem

L

LanternHill

Senior Member
Hello,

I recently purchased a Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED IF AF-S DX VR Lens. It seems to work well for general scenic photos. However, when I try to use it for more closeup photos, the contrast is very drastic.

Attached are a series of photos I took this morning. They have all been resized since I am on a slower rural connection, but they have not been edited in any way. I have renamed them to include the lenses and other variables.

The first two I took with my 35mm 1.8f lens, one using a light diffuser and one without. I then changed to the 18-300 zoom lens with the ND2 filter attached. Again, I took one photo using the diffuser and one without. I removed the ND2 filter and repeated the process. As you can see, the contrast varies greatly between the 35mm lens and the 18-300 lens. Any insight on how to prevent this is greatly appreciated. Yesterday, I tried adjusting the contrast settings on my camera, but it didn’t seem to make a difference.


DSC_5626_35mm_diffuser_resized.jpgDSC_5629_35mm_no_diffuser_resized.jpg 35mm lens (diffuser, no diffuser)

DSC_5649_zoom_ND2_no_diffuser_resized.jpgDSC_5655_zoom_ND2_diffuser_resized.jpg 18-300mm lens ND2 filter (no diffuser, diffuser)

DSC_5659_zoom_diffuser_resized.jpgDSC_5661_zoom_no_diffuser_resized.jpg 18-300mm lens, no filter (diffuser, no diffuser)
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
I just don't think that is the ideal lens for what you are trying to do there. You might have better results, though, on a cloudy day.
 
L

LanternHill

Senior Member
Thanks for your reply, Ron. The results are about the same on a cloudy day. The reason I bought the lens is so I would haven't to switch between my other 3 lenses all the time. It has glowing reviews and many people say they never take it off their camera. I was just surprised that if it was such a great all-around lens, I was having trouble with it taking a fairly common photo.
 
R

RON_RIP

Senior Member
Well, the contrast is caused by the amount of light in the scene. any good lens pick up that contrast. I have had the same problem with my prime lenses in a highly contrasting light. I have gone as far as standing between the light source and the object to mute the excess light. Light is our friend, except when it is not.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Not sure why you're using an ND2. You're in Exposure Compensation range there.

That said, as was mentioned this isn't the kind of lens that's going to perform well on stuff like this. It would help if we had EXIF on some so we knew where you were in the room range and what your settings are, but regardless that lens has a huuuuuuge focal range - effectively it's a 27-450mm lens. That's almost ridiculous. The fact that you didn't have to pay thousands of dollars for it tells you that the optics are going to be a compromise at various places throughout the range, and at various apertures at each.

It's the kind of lens that is great when you're on vacation and want to be able to shoot everything you could ever possibly find to shoot and get more than adequate results. But it's not an art lens by any stretch, so as you push it in places it's going to show its weaknesses. And I say this having never shot with it - that's something you need to expect from any budget, wide-range zoom lens. I had the 28-300mm for a while and liked it a lot. But I don't have it any more because of things like you're finding here.

What you're also learning is why so many people shoot with primes when they want the best results. One focal length means minimal internal movement and designers can optimize optics for that focal length. I love my zoom lenses because I'm lazy. But I've learned to love my primes because I'm also (supposedly) a photographer.
 
Last edited:
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
BackdoorHippie said:
Not sure why you're using an ND2. You're in Exposure Compensation range there.

That said, as was mentioned this isn't the kind of lens that's going to perform well on stuff like this. It would help if we had EXIF on some so we knew where you were in the room range and what your settings are, but regardless that lens has a huuuuuuge focal range - effectively it's a 27-450mm lens. That's almost ridiculous. The fact that you didn't have to pay thousands of dollars for it tells you that the optics are going to be a compromise at various places throughout the range, and at various apertures at each.

It's the kind of lens that is great when you're on vacation and want to be able to shoot everything you could ever possibly find to shoot and get more than adequate results. But it's not an art lens by any stretch, so as you push it in places it's going to show its weaknesses. And I say this having never shot with it - that's something you need to expect from any budget, wide-range zoom lens. I had the 28-300mm for a while and liked it a lot. But I don't have it any more because of things like you're finding here.

What you're also learning is why so many people shoot with primes when they want the best results. One focal length means minimal internal movement and designers can optimize optics for that focal length. I love my zoom lenses because I'm lazy. But I've learned to love my primes because I'm also (supposedly) a photographer.
Click to expand...
Lazy and photographer can be used in the same sentence, but the photographs will show one or the other.. :) but rarely both at the same time.
 
L

LanternHill

Senior Member
mikew said:
Out of interest are you shooting raw or jpeg and what are your in camera settings for contrast ect.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay in replying. I really appreciate everyone's feedback.

I'm shooting jpeg. I tried raw for a bit. However, since I'm not a professional, the raw was taking up a lot more space on my computer than I wanted to use. I've tried a variety of settings. Program with the Active D-lighting on and off. Aperture priority doing the same. I've even tried going into the Picture Control Settings and turning the contrast down. It didn't seem to make a difference. The only thing I have found I can do sometimes that makes a difference is to underexpose a couple stops.

I have decided to keep the lens since I really am pleased with the general landscape photos. The contrast there makes everything 'pop' in my opinion. I'll just switch back to my 35mm 1.8f when doing my food or flower photography. I'll use the 18-300mm when I'm traveling.

Even though it wasn't top of the line, I guess I didn't expect such a drastic issue with a $700 lens that had rave reviews. I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something wrong and that there wasn't something wrong with the lens. Tech support claims it must be my camera settings, but since the 35mm lens does just fine, I don't think it is that.

Thank you again for the feedback!

General photography: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mylanternhill
Food photography: https://www.flickr.com/photos/caymandesigns
 
L

LanternHill

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
Not sure why you're using an ND2. You're in Exposure Compensation range there.

That said, as was mentioned this isn't the kind of lens that's going to perform well on stuff like this. It would help if we had EXIF on some so we knew where you were in the room range and what your settings are, but regardless that lens has a huuuuuuge focal range - effectively it's a 27-450mm lens. That's almost ridiculous. The fact that you didn't have to pay thousands of dollars for it tells you that the optics are going to be a compromise at various places throughout the range, and at various apertures at each.

It's the kind of lens that is great when you're on vacation and want to be able to shoot everything you could ever possibly find to shoot and get more than adequate results. But it's not an art lens by any stretch, so as you push it in places it's going to show its weaknesses. And I say this having never shot with it - that's something you need to expect from any budget, wide-range zoom lens. I had the 28-300mm for a while and liked it a lot. But I don't have it any more because of things like you're finding here.

What you're also learning is why so many people shoot with primes when they want the best results. One focal length means minimal internal movement and designers can optimize optics for that focal length. I love my zoom lenses because I'm lazy. But I've learned to love my primes because I'm also (supposedly) a photographer.
Click to expand...

I tried the ND2 filter just because I was desperate and it came with the lens. :p I've just started selling some of my photos as stock photos. I thought the 18-300mm would be a good idea because I've missed shots trying to change lenses. I guess now I know why "real" professional photographers carry a couple cameras around with a variety of lenses...you don't miss shots AND you don't have to change lenses.

Thank you for your reply and input! I really appreciate it!

BTW, I found your "location" description amusing. ;)
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
LanternHill said:
I tried the ND2 filter just because I was desperate and it came with the lens. :p I've just started selling some of my photos as stock photos. I thought the 18-300mm would be a good idea because I've missed shots trying to change lenses. I guess now I know why "real" professional photographers carry a couple cameras around with a variety of lenses...you don't miss shots AND you don't have to change lenses.

Thank you for your reply and input! I really appreciate it!

BTW, I found your "location" description amusing. ;)
Click to expand...

FWIW, before Scott Kelby abandoned ship for Canon he talked about using the 28-300mm as his "vacation lens" all the time. The key to lenses like that is knowing the sweet spot(s), which are almost never on the extremes. His advice (such as it sometimes is) was to just stick it on f11 and not think about it the rest of the trip. You don't miss photos, but you're not creating bokeh art either.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
LanternHill said:
Hello,

I recently purchased a Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED IF AF-S DX VR Lens. It seems to work well for general scenic photos. However, when I try to use it for more closeup photos, the contrast is very drastic.

Attached are a series of photos I took this morning. They have all been resized since I am on a slower rural connection, but they have not been edited in any way. I have renamed them to include the lenses and other variables.

The first two I took with my 35mm 1.8f lens, one using a light diffuser and one without. I then changed to the 18-300 zoom lens with the ND2 filter attached. Again, I took one photo using the diffuser and one without. I removed the ND2 filter and repeated the process. As you can see, the contrast varies greatly between the 35mm lens and the 18-300 lens. Any insight on how to prevent this is greatly appreciated. Yesterday, I tried adjusting the contrast settings on my camera, but it didn’t seem to make a difference.


View attachment 202129View attachment 202130 35mm lens (diffuser, no diffuser)

View attachment 202131View attachment 202132 18-300mm lens ND2 filter (no diffuser, diffuser)

View attachment 202133View attachment 202134 18-300mm lens, no filter (diffuser, no diffuser)
Click to expand...

I agree with everyone that says that this is not the lens for this type of shooting. If you are strapped for funds I would recommend the 50mm 1.8 AF-D lens for your D3100 . For under a 100 dollars it will give you much nicer results for this type of shooting. (and other types as well)
 
Danno

Danno

Senior Member
I have an 18-250 Sigma. It is my walk around lens. I use it when I go for a walk up and down the road. I live in the country. I love it cause I am not able to change lenses on these walks but I can get some decent shots now and than.
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
LanternHill said:
Program with the Active D-lighting on and off.
Click to expand...

I used to shoot jpeg when I'd take photos for my local high school's drama department. Since so much detail fell into the shadows and was difficult to recover, I turned the Active-D lighting on to the highest setting (least amount of contrast). It made a noticeable difference. Don't just turn it on...have you intentionally set it to the highest?
 
Top