First shots with 300mm lens - advice needed

Jack'll do

I recently purchased a used Nikkor AF 300mm f/2.8 lens (no D,G, or VR) and have been playing with it for a few days. I am somewhat disappointed with the results and don't know whether I'm doing something wrong or that there is a problem with this lens. I see others' shots tack sharp while mine are not. PP has involved Levels, Contrast, Crop, Resize and Unsharp mask in PS. I use a 0.4 sec. shutter delay to avoid mirror shake, and a tripod. I am wondering whether the tripod may be contributing to the lack of sharpness. I notice that most high quality tripods are considerably more robust than mine. I am using a light weight Slik tripod that I used with an old Nikon F body film camera with much smaller (lighter) lenses. The tripod has an elevating crank up tube which extends about a foot from where the legs converge. I find a certain springiness in this set up but thought that high shutter speeds would overcome that.
I'd like your opinions as to whether a sturdier tripod is the answer, or there is something wrong with the AF system in this lens, or I need a TC to get the results I am looking for.

Nikon D80, Aperture Priority, Spot metering. Distance to subjects approx. 20 ft. except 50-60 ft. for #5.

1.
f/6.3 ISO 200 1/640


2.
f/8.0 ISO 200 1/640


2b.
f/5.6 ISO 200 1/1250

3.
f/2.8 ISO 100 1/320


4.
f/5.6 ISO 200 1/800


5.
f/6.3 ISO 200 1/1250 *Distance to subject approx. 50-60 ft. on this one.


6.
f/2.8 ISO 640 1/1000

Osprey Whisperer

Hey Jack, Is there a filter on the lens? Just a thought...but I had an issue with a 400mm that had a UV filter attached. Everything was soft. Figured out it was the filter causing issues with the lens/AF system. Once removed the pictures were tack sharp.

Good luck.

Jack'll do

Bird Man Photographer wrote:

Hey Jack, Is there a filter on the lens? Just a thought...but I had an issue with a 400mm that had a UV filter attached. Everything was soft. Figured out it was the filter causing issues with the lens/AF system. Once removed the pictures were tack sharp.

Good luck.

Mike
Thanks for posting that. There was a slide in filter which I presume was UV. Before I removed it the photos were more OOF than these. I'm hoping its the tripod but not too confident as they are soft even at 1/1250.

ohiofalcon

even though it isn't tack sharp I still like the flying redpoll in the bottom right of pic #4. wish I could get a BIF that looks normal. How much are you cropping? That might be part of the fuzzy problem.

Maestro

Okay, let me ask a question that might seem a bit fundamental but I did this for a few times causing my shots to be blurry and couldn't figure out why, but anyhow, are you trying to manually focus when AF is on. On my Canon, I had this nasty habit of leaving the AF switch in the on position on my lens and then try to focus manually. When I thought I had the manual focus I wanted without me knowing it, the AF would focus on something else causing what I thought to be in focus, not to be. Could this be what is happening?

I only ask to try to remove even the most obvious cause before we blame the lens.

JohnDC

Jack --- The best advice I received for shooting birds with a long lens (400-600 equivalent) was to use manual exposure and boost the ISO to get shutter speeds of greater than 1/1250: try for more than 1/2000. I mostly shoot hand-held with a Bushhawk and get very sharp shots of flying birds this way. According to this method, your photo 2b should have been much sharper, but nothing in that frame appears to be in focus. Did you crop out something? The dried flowers in photo 8 look pretty sharp and noise-free at ISO 640, so you have a lot of latitude to raise your ISO.

Hope this helps --- John

Harryb

Hey Jack,

You should be getting much better results from that lens. I'm gonna assume the lens is OK for now. I would say the problem may be your tripod, the 300 2.8 is a heavy lens, what weight is the limit for your tripod? When shooting the 300 2.8 off a tripod you should have one of your hands on top of the lens to damp down any possible vibrations like so:

Jack'll do

ohiofalcon wrote:

even though it isn't tack sharp I still like the flying redpoll in the bottom right of pic #4. wish I could get a BIF that looks normal. How much are you cropping? That might be part of the fuzzy problem.

Not quite sure how to characterize how much I'm cropping, however the original photo is as much OOF as the cropped version.

Jack'll do

Maestro wrote:

Okay, let me ask a question that might seem a bit fundamental but I did this for a few times causing my shots to be blurry and couldn't figure out why, but anyhow, are you trying to manually focus when AF is on. On my Canon, I had this nasty habit of leaving the AF switch in the on position on my lens and then try to focus manually. When I thought I had the manual focus I wanted without me knowing it, the AF would focus on something else causing what I thought to be in focus, not to be. Could this be what is happening?

I only ask to try to remove even the most obvious cause before we blame the lens.

Hi Stephen
No I don't try to manually focus when in AF mode. I did try putting both the camera and lens in manual mode but the results were no better.

Jack'll do

JohnDC wrote:

Jack --- The best advice I received for shooting birds with a long lens (400-600 equivalent) was to use manual exposure and boost the ISO to get shutter speeds of greater than 1/1250: try for more than 1/2000. I mostly shoot hand-held with a Bushhawk and get very sharp shots of flying birds this way. According to this method, your photo 2b should have been much sharper, but nothing in that frame appears to be in focus. Did you crop out something? The dried flowers in photo 8 look pretty sharp and noise-free at ISO 640, so you have a lot of latitude to raise your ISO.

Hope this helps --- John

Hi John
I did try this when I first got the lens but its worth revisiting as that was using a more flimsy tripod and before removing the UV filter. I am hoping for good light today to try the new tripod and see if that helps.

Jack'll do

Harryb wrote:

Hey Jack,

You should be getting much better results from that lens. I'm gonna assume the lens is OK for now. I would say the problem may be your tripod, the 300 2.8 is a heavy lens, what weight is the limit for your tripod? When shooting the 300 2.8 off a tripod you should have one of your hands on top of the lens to damp down any possible vibrations like so:

Hi Harry
I too am leaning toward the tripod as the culprit. I don't know the weight limit as it's an old tripod I've had for years since my film/small lens days.
I just picked up a more rugged tripod (used and cheap) and it still allows the lens to visibly move when pressure is applied to the shutter release. I will try your method once the light improves today.