Weird "soft" images from D2H/70-200VR

[DoctorIt]

So I finally got around to processing the photos I took at the Boston Marathon about 2 weeks ago now, and at first I was patting my gear on the back saying "well done!". Now, on closer inspection, I'm seeing a lot of images that look like this:

http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/67005528-L.jpg

There's not a single spot in focus. So even if the focus was slow in keeping up with the moving runners, should I at least have the guy in the back on the bicycle in focus? And its not even usual oof type blur, more of this weird halo-ish soft look.

Wasn't a consistent thing though, I have images like this, which are dead tack-sharp:

http://doctorit.smugmug.com/photos/67006563-L.jpg

(No post on any either of these)

So what do you think about the first image? Is it just me, or is that a very strange oof look? Why?

[gus]

So what do you think about the first image? Is it just me, or is that a very strange oof look? Why?

Can you post the EXIF ?

[Andy]

Can you post the EXIF ?

And, 100% crops, or put your samples in a critique-style gallery and we can view the images in detail with smugloupe :D

[TristanP]

Maybe #7 was steaming up your lens?














:hide

VR settings the same for all shots? :dunno

[DoctorIt]

I haven't placed any restrictions on the gallery, so you should be able to view everything you want, here:

http://doctorit.smugmug.com/gallery/1413440

I haven't uploaded more photos yet, just those two.
(thanks guys!)

[gus]

I haven't placed any restrictions on the gallery, so you should be able to view everything you want, here:

http://doctorit.smugmug.com/gallery/1413440

I haven't uploaded more photos yet, just those two.
(thanks guys!)
Sorta looks like a soft fog on the lens :scratch

I thought it was spring over there ? Man it looks like the north pole looking at the spectators.

[Harryb]

The soft shot is at 2.8 which is wide open, the sharper image is at 3.5. Do you have Nikon Capture? If you do open the soft image in capture and use the "show focus area" (ctrl+shift + F) to see what you were focusing on. If the focus area is soft then you may have a problem with the lens or the camera.

[DoctorIt]

Sorta looks like a soft fog on the lens :scratch exactly! weird, huh?

I thought it was spring over there ? Man it looks like the north pole looking at the spectators.It was an rather unseasonably cool day/morning. The runners were loving it, but standing around, it definitely got chilly.

[DoctorIt]

The soft shot is at 2.8 which is wide open, the sharper image is at 3.5. Do you have Nikon Capture? If you do open the soft image in capture and use the "show focus area" (ctrl+shift + F) to see what you were focusing on. If the focus area is soft then you may have a problem with the lens or the camera.Hmm, I don't have Nikon Capture.

I realized the DOF was smaller, but I'm still surprised NOTHING in that shot is in focus (I looked real hard), not to mention the weird foggy look.

Probably just an artifact of the days conditions, especially since I have several of both types of shot clear/foggy.
:scratch

[Bob Bell]

Hmm, I don't have Nikon Capture.

I realized the DOF was smaller, but I'm still surprised NOTHING in that shot is in focus (I looked real hard), not to mention the weird foggy look.

Probably just an artifact of the days conditions, especially since I have several of both types of shot clear/foggy.
:scratch

This is totally theory mind you, but were the runners running at a different speed then you were moving? And was the motorcycle cop moving at about the same speed?

You have enough shutter speed to capture those runners easy, you could of gone to F4 and been okay I think so I wonder if the difference in speed between you and the group ahead of you is faster than the AF speed. To me that would make sense why you can't get anyone sharp.

Just theory. Must of been pretty cool to shoot that.

[JamesJWeg]

I am 100% sure it wasn't af speed. It does look just like lens fog, but from the time stamps it had little time to clear, did you per-chance breathe on it? or someone near you maybe? I have a habbit of resting the lens hood on my belt to rest my arms when shooting with the 70-200 sigma and D2H, I did get some fogging from body heat that way, but if that is what it was then it cleared fast.

James.

[pathfinder]

I think some of the issue is fog, either on the lens or in the air, the blue tail lights almost look like aerial fog. But Erick would have seen that too with his eyes.

The background of many of your images with this lens, tends to be very low contrast and almost slightly desaturated with a grayish look also, even when the plane of focus seems sharp and more contrasty. Some of this may be managed with post processing or changing the image settings in the camera.

The contrast and color seems much less than we are seeing with Harry's images with his D200.

[Harryb]

Hmm, I don't have Nikon Capture.

I realized the DOF was smaller, but I'm still surprised NOTHING in that shot is in focus (I looked real hard), not to mention the weird foggy look.

Probably just an artifact of the days conditions, especially since I have several of both types of shot clear/foggy.
:scratch

Go to the Nikon site and download a trial version of Capture. It ain't no speed demon but it does the best RAW conversion of NEFs.

[ivar]

did you shoot handheld? or tripod?

[DoctorIt]

Go to the Nikon site and download a trial version of Capture. It ain't no speed demon but it does the best RAW conversion of NEFs.Boo. I don't buy that for a second - and I hate Capture's workflow.

I've had stunning images with this lens/camera at first. Something weird was up this particular day.

[MPerdomo]

Is there a UV filter on the lens?

The two times I have seen this image problem, a UV filter was to blame

[JamesJWeg]

Is there a UV filter on the lens?

The two times I have seen this image problem, a UV filter was to blame

Maybe it had something to do with the strobes seen in the frame? Lighting the filter or front element?

James.

[Matthew Saville]

Hmm, I don't have Nikon Capture.

I realized the DOF was smaller, but I'm still surprised NOTHING in that shot is in focus (I looked real hard), not to mention the weird foggy look.

Probably just an artifact of the days conditions, especially since I have several of both types of shot clear/foggy.
:scratch

Hi DoctrIt,

The first, and smallest reason the shots are slightly soft is that they're wide open, at f/2.8. As stellar as the newest lenses perform at f/2.8, the 70-200 in my opinion isn't at the top of the list. If for exampe I didn't need the VR but wanted the DOF that f/2.8 offered, I'd opt for an older 80-200 f/2.8 instead. That isn't to say that the 70-200 isn't "useable" wide open, in fact I love the lens and shoot freely with it wide-open whenever I rent it.

Secondly, your shutter speed is, on average, down around 1/100 or 1/500 sec. Therefore VR is definitely accounting for some of the sharpness, and "VR induced sharpness" can sometimes have this appearance of not being able to discern where exactly you've focused...

Lastly, it looks to me like it was pretty humid that day. In image 17 for example, you can see a pretty strong fuzzy halo around the slightly OOF bike rider in the background, which looks like moisture in the air. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I'm probably guessing right: humidity. If you've ever tried shooting in Oklahoma on a hot, sticky August morning, you will know that humidity can indeed damage image sharpness...



The first shot you posted is indeed "in focus", I can tell that the runners and the people riding in the car are as "sharp" as the camera settings and shooting conditions will allow.

In any case, don't worry, your 70-200 isn't acting up!

Take care,
-Matt-

[Seamus]

just my 2 cents doc............ when I shoot bikes and use ai servo I get soft shots if the camera / lens hasn't locked onto a bike properly before I press the shutter. Perhaps the focus was off slightly or hadn't locked onto the runner :dunno ,

[DoctorIt]

answers...

-NO filter
-some handheld, some monopod
-it was chilly, had rained the day before - so not a "very humid" day

Matthew - I think you've got it dead on. I was forgetting the VR, so as you say, they are "in focus" but have a weird look from the combination of all factors.

And yes, thanks, now I feel better that something wasn't intermittently going on with my equipment, just not the best technique on my part.

As illustrated with the police officer, however, I still got lots of great shots with this combo (and I've uploaded them all now, to that same gallery).

Thanks all, for comments and suggestions! :thumb

[ziggy53]

Erik,

From my own view, it looks like the license plate on the truck is pretty sharp. The license plate is dark, so it doesn't command much attention, but it does look pretty sharp even magnified. I'm guessing that is your prime focus, and there just isn't much else in that focal plane. There is a stripe on the pavement that looks sharp under, and to the left of, the truck.

Why the folks on the truck are not so sharp is unclear (yes that's a little pun.)

ziggy53

[gus]

Doc...we invented humidity here. Dogs drown walking down the street. Unless the lens has fogged from being close to a warm body then i would never ever expect to see that here on a humid day & we seriuosly can get weeks of 90+ %.

I do notice the humidity greatly when trying my moon shoots with the 400mm but i honestly dont think the subject is far enough away for humidity to be this much of a factor.

My 2 bob.