More old Nikon glass - and is my final sharpening ok.

[ajohnw]

I've been reading KR's pages and he reckons this particular zoom is nearly as good as primes. Nikon 28-85 F3.5/4.5. For me this is a useful walk around range for some purposes but on Canon I used a 24-xx so I would prefer this one to start at that too. They don't seem to have made an AF-D that did.

The shots show how quickly the UK weather changes over just 10mins or so at the moment. I would like opinions on the level of final sharpening. They are camera jpg's with minimal quick pp. Looks to be a pretty good lens.

Shot 1
Dynamic range a wee bit to high for jpg's.



Shot 2
Ducks don't need a pool at the moment. Might have made a nice shot if I waded into the mud. And some real sun light too.



Shot 3
Ducks waiting for a bus. Shaded by trees but not much sun even though there was some for a short time.



Shot 4
Flat sky and found that centre weighted well under exposed this. Started to rain.



Shot 5
Back home and my flash now works. Bella our 7 year old GS puppy. Very good at leaving hair and bits on the carpet. That's why we use one.



The full sized shot is here. Looks to me like KR is correct.

http://www.23hq.com/ajohnw/photo/15340014/original

John
-

[IzzieK]

Dear John...I like all your shots apart from #4 which really does nothing for me.

[ajohnw]

Dear John...I like all your shots apart from #4 which really does nothing for me.

Me neither. I was a bit annoyed with the camera metering on that one. I tried centre weighted manly to see what happens. It took in far too much sky. You should see the shot of ducks in lake that I didn't post. I suspect I will settle on matrix and find out how it behaves. Problem is that the weather is not really suitable for going some where and taking a big variety of shots.

I'm a bit concerned about too much or too little sharpening after the final reduction in size.

John
-

[Jable]

I think you has done a great Job with the sharpening in all. No halos at all.
Sorry for my english
Pedro

[Shadowman]

Did you have to do any sharpening at all to the first image?

[Black Pearl]

To be fair any lens when stopped down - as these are - and at internet sizes will be sharp. You would have to be doing something catastrophically wrong in your picture taking for them to be anything else.
The full sized image you linked to isn't anything to write home about, its ok but the vast noise levels tend to overpower any real value the image may have as a basis for showing resolution.

I would prefer a direct comparison with another zoom and possibly a good fixed lens, at lower ISO's and with good technique before any hard facts could be argued over.

That is not to say it isn't a nice lens to use though on a crop body I would personally prefer something a fair bit wider - I use a Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3-5-5.6G ED VR DX lens and that makes for an amazing 'walkabout' bit of glass.

[ajohnw]

Did you have to do any sharpening at all to the first image?

I will post some crops tomorrow - past my bedtime in the UK. My impression as with the 300mm is that it's noise limited but less so, more down to the lens. It seems it's important to get the multi coated version - greenish tint. The earlier one with the lug isn't so good it seems. The dog is available at 100% in the link - shot at F16.

Closed down Robin? - the 1st one needed it for the dof. The rest apart from the dog are typical F ratio's and at the distance the dog was shot at with 85mm it probably needed F16 anyway. Not much interest in wide angle for the sort of usage it might get but would be happier if it went down to 35mm equive. As it is it goes short of 50mm equiv to a reasonable amount past 100 and easily covers eye view range it will do. Of the new lenses I would favour the fast one but it's a touch expensive for the amount of use I would give it.

John
-

[Stagecoach]

John,

Looking at these images, disregarding the subjects I would say the 'final sharpening' looks ok with no over-sharpening obviously evident.

I see nothing particular within these posted images, or the full size No 4, that would suggest to me that it's a good lens or not or has produced anything superior in IQ that sets it apart from what I would suspect most decent P&Ss can produce these days.

Grahame

[Shadowman]

John,

Looking at these images, disregarding the subjects I would say the 'final sharpening' looks ok with no over-sharpening obviously evident.

I see nothing particular within these posted images, or the full size No 4, that would suggest to me that it's a good lens or not or has produced anything superior in IQ that sets it apart from what I would suspect most decent P&Ss can produce these days.

Grahame

John and Grahame,

I think the first photo is the best indicator of how well the lens performs, if you can't get a reasonably sharp photo in that light you'll have more problems in more complicated situations.

[ajohnw]

Rather than crops I have done a couple of 400% screen shots as they show what is going on. One at the wide end and another at the long. Bear in mind that there may be a tiny bit of shake at this resolution.







I'll resist getting the point and shoot out.

I couldn't find any places where noise and optical contrast drop off spoiled resolution. There was one in the telephoto shot I posted The car dealers name on the number plate under the number.

I feel contrast levels are excellent for a lens like this. Probably wouldn't be without the multi coating. Best described as can be seen but not as easily as some other forms. Looks like it may be BBAR to me. Pentax early multi coating had a sort of gold/brown tinge.

It looks like KR is right to me. Be interesting to compare with Nikon kit level on the same shots. I probably will at some point because it gives some idea how much can be cropped out.

The tone curve is the default. Not my thing but it's interesting to see what nikons other ones can do with ViewNX2 from raw. And D light. There is also plenty of scope in the 1st one.

John
-

[ajohnw]

There is some chromatic aberration that I suspect has been partly corrected in the camera as it's more dense from raw. Looks a little like a sharpening line in the other crops. On the other hand it might be fringing - I don't know if the D7000 has an anti aliasing filter. If it hasn't it CA. This one is at 600% and most likely CA.



And from RAW before any processing so in this case it's darker thanks to Photivo.



Good / bad. It's not that unusual to see figures around this level in tests - would have hoped for less though.

John
-

[Shadowman]

There is some chromatic aberration that I suspect has been partly corrected in the camera as it's more dense from raw. Looks a little like a sharpening line in the other crops. On the other hand it might be fringing - I don't know if the D7000 has an anti aliasing filter. If it hasn't it CA. This one is at 600% and most likely CA.



And from RAW before any processing so in this case it's darker thanks to Photivo.



Good / bad. It's not that unusual to see figures around this level in tests - would have hoped for less though.

John
-

Is the lens you used designed for digital or film?

[ajohnw]

I don't know John but there is a need to put the CA into perspective. This is the same thing at actual image size from the jpg. It pretty clear that the camera "corrects" it in jpg's. A lot of that goes on.



There is some colour in one of the pigeons heads - 2 tone 2 4 pixel squares and the pigeons themselves are strongly pixelated around the edge. They are right at the limit of the camera let alone the lens.

If you look at the bottom of this page you will see it's similar to the 18-105mm and maybe better than the 18-55 which is on another page.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...3556vr?start=1

The main thing on digital lenses is coating and I am rather sure it is BBAR.

I had a quick go at a decent shot from it. Not as I would ideally want but my processing software has changed - need to get used to it. Must admit that I feel Nikon camera shots are probably most easily dealt with in NEX2 - at the moment.



The biggest problem was noise. I removed as much as I could. That blurs so needs reduction and sharpening I did the main adjustments while the noise was there - still not sure which is the best way to go on that. I more or less completely removed the noise from the main building end wall next to the extension. I removed the CA first - that will cause problems with subsequent processing if much is left.

Actually as the red and blue are different on this lens I suspect some of the problem is wear. I may talk to the seller about that.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

What on earth has gone wrong with that last shot?
Is it an upload error?

[ajohnw]

What on earth has gone wrong with that last shot?
Is it an upload error?

As I said not as I would like but I think your monitor may have had a brief hickup.

John
-

[Shadowman]

John,

I read the KR article and he said that you will get vignetting unless you use a filter and you will get a green ghost if the sun is in your image. Also, he stated that he previously used this lens on a Nikon F100 film camera.

[ajohnw]

I don't think this lens would be much good on film either. If you look at the 1st post of this shot it looks like there is a sharpening line along the roof. It would stick out like a sore thumb on slide or film at the size these lenses were intended to cope with. It differs from shot to shot too so it looks like it's worn out. It's going back.

2 things are mainly mentioned in relation to digital lenses. Coating - which in this case is ok and distance from the last piece of glass to the sensor. If the last one really matters people had best stop using Nikons. Many lenses were not coated internally which just lowers contrast. That doesn't seem to be a problem in this case. There is a lot of glass in it going on the weight.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

As I said not as I would like but I think your monitor may have had a brief hickup.

John
-

No - there is something desperately wrong with the processing of that image.
It looks like it has either been very badly tone mapped or simply ruined due to poor technique.

As to the lens:
The AF Zoom Nikkor 28-85mm f/3.5~4.5s - introduced Sept. 1986; Discontinued 1990/1991 - was essentially a replica of the MF counterpart where optically, it still uses the same 15 elements in 11 group design.

So definitely not designed for digital and definitely from the days of film. None of that means it is a bad lens but zooming an image 400% to go beyond normal levels of pixel peeping is a strange way to decide if it is still usable.

[ajohnw]

It ran until 1999 Robin. As to the shot as I said not as I would like. As to lens it's a little odd that blue and red go in totally opposite directions.

Quote from KR's site.

There are two AF versions. The original AF version (1986-1990) had a nasty thin hard plastic focus ring. The one I have and review here, the AF-n (1990-1999), has a wider rubberized focus ring. They are all the same inside.

No comment on the rest as you might find it offensive and it wouldn't be intended that way. Just educational.

You are correct about the tone mapping other than it was done in an unusual way and it doesn't work out.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Just for Robin. This is what I can get quickly if I don't remove the noise. Still not totally happy with it. The lines round the roof are left from CA and it seems to be nigh on impossible to get completely rid of them. The noise levels probably don't help with that.

I am mostly used to working on ORF and NEF looks to be a bit of a problem at the moment. One success and this failure.



The lens is going to be returned anyway. There are several things moving about inside these lenses when they are zoomed and focused and I feel that the "linkages" are worn.

John
-