[bars] Photography

[Matt Wagner]

Jason,

I initially misread your email as saying you wanted something that would be
good for making the background *more* blurred (e.g., pleasing bokeh).

I’m curious to what magnitude you’re seeing images as “fuzzy.” Plenty of
perfectly-good shots will look mediocre if you end up zooming in 100% and
staring at the corners. (If that’s all it is, my advice is: don’t do that.
It’s sort of like going mad trying to improve on a 1:1.2 SWR. Yes, you
might be able to get it a little better, but it’s really not worth the
effort invested.)

There’s a few factors at play here. One is just build quality; I’m entirely
unfamiliar with Nikon’s 18-55mm but some $100-ish “kit lenses” like the
Canon 18-55mm I got with my Canon DSLR are just mediocre performers.
They’re decent, but not stunning.

Depth of field becomes an issue too, and paradoxically it can be more of an
issue with higher-end lenses. I have photos of family with an 85mm f/1.8
where autofocus must have locked onto their nose and their eyes are just
ever so slightly out of focus. The depth of field is so shallow that it’s
very unforgiving.

Also, I’m not an optics guru who could explain why, but lenses tend to be
sharper (even on the in-focus bits) stopped down a bit. I accidentally took
some f/2.8 landscape shots and they‘re pretty bad. Stopping down to f/8 or
so would have been a lot sharper across the board.

Finally, some cameras offer in-camera sharpening. It can’t perform
miracles, but sometimes slight sharpening is what’s needed. I’ve kept this
disabled on mine because I can always add my own unsharp mask in Lightroom,
but if the camera overdoes sharpening it’s hard to recover from. But it
might be as simple as turning on some in-camera sharpening if things just
need a little tweak.

I live in the Canon ecosystem (just because that’s where I have existing
equipment, not out of any strong opinions), but in general the 70-200mm
f/2.8 lenses from the big names are *excellent*. I have the Canon one and
absolutely love it. (For longer focal lengths, I generally just crop. I’ve
thought about buying a 400mm f/5.6 for shooting birds, but I don’t think
I’d use it enough. I have a big print, maybe 20x30”, from a 6MP original.)

At the risk of subjecting you to financial ruin, have you seen sites like
LensRentals.com? I’ve used them in the past for trying out stuff I was
tempted to buy. Just be warned it can get addictive… Both being able to
rent all sorts of stuff, and trying out something like the 70-200mm and
deciding you need to buy one.

I don’t consider myself an expert, and there are probably others on the
list that are more experienced, but these have been my experiences.

73,
Matt, N1ZYY


On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 19:50 Jason Sanroma <jason at sanroma.net> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Although this is a Ham group I am sure there is a good amount of
> photographers out here that could provide some insight on a few questions I
> have.
>
> First, for equipment, I use a Nikon D-3500 DLSR camera, I have (2) lenses
> so far,
> 1) Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6G
> <https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-dx-zoom-nikkor-18-55mm-f%252f3.5-5.6g-ed-ii.html>
> 2) Nikon AF-P DX Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR
> <https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-p-dx-nikkor-70-300mm-f%252f4.5-6.3g-ed-vr.html>
>
> Both of the lenses work well but I want something that makes the photo
> more crisp and less blurred/fuzzy when zoomed in. This could also just be a
> "beginner" issue I am having.
>
> I have two options I am looking for,
> 1) Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm-500mm F/5.6 ED VR
> <http://nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-70-200mm-f%252f2.8e-fl-ed-vr.html>
> 2) Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens
> <https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-70-200mm-2-8E/dp/B01M4L36RJ?th=1>
>
> I mainly want a new lens for sports photography, landscape photography,
> and close-ups of birds and sailboats.
>
> Any information is appreciated!
>
> 73
> Jason K1NAD
> _______________________________________________
> bars mailing list
> bars at w1hh.org
> http://mail.w1hh.org/mailman/listinfo/bars_w1hh.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.w1hh.org/pipermail/bars_w1hh.org/attachments/20230526/e34eec1a/attachment.htm>