Is my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 sharp?

alexthecheese · 29 May 2012 at 17:49

Probably me just being stupid, but is this photo as sharp as you'd expect from a D5100 with a 70-200mm f/2.8?

Photo is 1/1000sec, f/2.8, ISO 100, VR Active, JPEG Fine, Highest resolution. About as sharp as it's going to get?

It kinds looks like there's a slight shadow to the left on the writing. :confused:

If you go to Flickr, zoom in and go to the original, then zoom in a bit on your browser, you can see what I'm on about.

DSC_1269 by Alex Bayes, on Flickr

alexthecheese · 29 May 2012 at 18:06

Yeah there's a Hoya UV filter on it. Shall I try it with it off?

If it is just me being ultra picky I can live with that, I just wondered if it is as sharp as it should be.

alexthecheese · 29 May 2012 at 18:14

I'll go and try and recreate that shot without the filter on.

alexthecheese · 29 May 2012 at 18:28

OK, I actually think it's better. No VR, handheld at 1/500sec, ISO 200, f/2.8:

DSC_1539 by Alex Bayes, on Flickr

Clear grate by Alex Bayes, on Flickr

You can actually see it's a clear grate over their flue now, rather than it just being a messy blur. Could actually be the VR that's mucking it up though, I'll have to test that as well.

Are Hoya UV filters any good? It came with the lens.

At least I wasn't going mad.

EDIT: You can see how much clearer the little wooden post at the top end of the shed is even from the zoomed out pictures as well.

alexthecheese · 29 May 2012 at 18:45

No, focussing right on the writing of the van, leaning out of the window from our upstairs bedroom.

I'll try the VR on and off also, with the UV filter on and off and then post it.

I've just been sad enough to do a comparison gif of before and after, and it's actually really quite noticeable (when you compare them directly

) how much sharper the 2nd is, without the UV filter:

The gif animator has knackered the quality of the photos but you can still tell, particularly with that flue thing.

alexthecheese · 29 May 2012 at 20:53

It really doesn't help that I did the comparison by changing two factors does it!

Where's the great website about using VR, DP?

As a rule, when should I stop/start using VR? 1/1000 is obvious to me now that it's not necessary for VR. Am I looking at it down at 1/100 and lower? Ish? Suppose it also depends on the focal length.

alexthecheese · 29 May 2012 at 21:14

Cheers DP, I'll read that.

I can't test it properly 'cos it's getting lower in light, but it looks like it's the VR that's doing it (I've got the VR1 lens, btw DP).

I've just tried it without VR, handheld, and I can get as much detail on that flue, without the ghosting, with the UV filter on and the VR off.

I've also tried it with the VR on and there's no ghosting there, but the image is clear at only 1/30ths shutter speed.

I'll try again tomorrow but it does look like a case of the VR smudging my otherwise perfectly good shots. Sorry.