50mm/f1.8 Nikon. Disappointed with results - am I right?
Discussion
I bought myself a 50mm f1.8 Nikon lens for my D80 at the weekend. I was hoping for better sharpness than the kit lens provides, but I honestly can't tell the difference.
The full frame:
At pixel-for-pixel resolution:
I really was expecting photos with the 50mm lens to be pin-sharp at 100% zoom but there's still a softness in the edges. Of course the D80 and this lens are far from the best that money can buy, but is the quality you can see above all I should expect for this camera and lens? Would you guys be happy with similar results from kit like mine?
The full frame:
At pixel-for-pixel resolution:
I really was expecting photos with the 50mm lens to be pin-sharp at 100% zoom but there's still a softness in the edges. Of course the D80 and this lens are far from the best that money can buy, but is the quality you can see above all I should expect for this camera and lens? Would you guys be happy with similar results from kit like mine?
Presumably this isn't at f1.8 (most if not all lenses are soft wide open)
If you shoot JPG the camera will apply sharpening to the image as it processes it. It may be that all you need to do is crank it up from the default. Much of the 'sharpness' of a digital image comes not from the lens but processing.
Try other lenses that you are happy with - how does it compare?
If you shoot JPG the camera will apply sharpening to the image as it processes it. It may be that all you need to do is crank it up from the default. Much of the 'sharpness' of a digital image comes not from the lens but processing.
Try other lenses that you are happy with - how does it compare?
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 30th March 18:24
Sorry - didn't realise the EXIF data would be useful for such a question.
ISO: 100
F-Stop: f/9.5
Exposure: 1/125 sec.
Hand-held rather than tripod but I braced myself against a wall for support.
The only other lens I have is the 18-135 kit lens, which gives similar results except on rare occasions, which is why I bought the 50mm in the hope that I'd see better results. I don't have anything else with which to compare.
Although I can apply the sharpening filters in Photoshop I assumed when I bought this camera that I'd get a better raw image from the camera as a starting point. In pure quality terms it's not as far from a decent point-and-shoot as I expected.
ISO: 100
F-Stop: f/9.5
Exposure: 1/125 sec.
Hand-held rather than tripod but I braced myself against a wall for support.
Simpo Two said:
If you shoot JPG the camera will apply sharpening to the image as it processes it. It may be that all you need to do is crank it up from the default. Much of the 'sharpness' of a digital image comes not from the lens but processing.
Try other lenses that you are happy with - how does it compare?
The JPG and RAW formats are equally sharp for this shot.Try other lenses that you are happy with - how does it compare?
The only other lens I have is the 18-135 kit lens, which gives similar results except on rare occasions, which is why I bought the 50mm in the hope that I'd see better results. I don't have anything else with which to compare.
Although I can apply the sharpening filters in Photoshop I assumed when I bought this camera that I'd get a better raw image from the camera as a starting point. In pure quality terms it's not as far from a decent point-and-shoot as I expected.
Edited by AcidReflux on Tuesday 30th March 18:53
hmm.. well. one version is that this is just a point-n-shoot shot so it won't be much different from your kit lens, as it can very sharp in these sort of situations. it shines in action, lowlight, indoors, well, I think that after a while you'll feel the difference. as 50mm f1.8 is the sharpest of all the knives at f8 . just my 2p.
AcidReflux said:
The JPG and RAW formats are equally sharp for this shot.
In that case no (visible) sharpening has been applied. A RAW image needs to be sharpened in processing.You may have reached the stage where you're not happy with the shot 'as is' and need to look at processing/digital sharpening.
miniman said:
You haven't really bought it for f/9.5, though, have you? Isn't the whole idea to get some nice depth of field stuff?
Absolutely - I want bokkeh but also better low-light capability for candid indoor shots. I wanted this shot to be in focus throughout the frame which is why I closed off the aperture a bit.//dean said:
I wouldn't shoot hand-held at anything under 1/250, always use a tripod. You may think 1/125 is quick but it isn't. I've never had a problem with how sharp that lens is, probably at its best at f/8.0.
Ahh, OK. I'll bear this in mind. My kit lens seems to have a sweet spot so perhaps this one's no different. More experimentation needed.Simpo Two said:
AcidReflux said:
The JPG and RAW formats are equally sharp for this shot.
In that case no (visible) sharpening has been applied. A RAW image needs to be sharpened in processing.You may have reached the stage where you're not happy with the shot 'as is' and need to look at processing/digital sharpening.
AcidReflux said:
[
Do you guys (whose experience and knowledge I greatly respect) consider sharpening to be unavoidable as part of the post-processing? Maybe, as I implied in the thread title, I'm expecting too much by hoping that the camera's raw images won't need that sort of treatment.
You will need sharpening if converting from a RAW . . .Do you guys (whose experience and knowledge I greatly respect) consider sharpening to be unavoidable as part of the post-processing? Maybe, as I implied in the thread title, I'm expecting too much by hoping that the camera's raw images won't need that sort of treatment.
JPEG's are (usually) sharpened in the camera . . . on some cameras you can tweak this to be more or less . . . but the default will be sharpened . . .
Fd
AcidReflux said:
Do you guys (whose experience and knowledge I greatly respect) consider sharpening to be unavoidable as part of the post-processing? Maybe, as I implied in the thread title, I'm expecting too much by hoping that the camera's raw images won't need that sort of treatment.
I think you may be under the impression that a RAW image is 'better' than a JPG image. In fact it's just the (raw) data straight off the sensor - a starting point. In that respect it's 'better' because nothing has been altered or taken away, but it still has to be processed into an image and for best visual results some adjustments are perfectly normal, eg exposure (levels/curves), white balance, saturation, contrast, sharpening and so on. It doesn't mean you got it wrong, it means you can make it even better.//dean said:
AcidReflux said:
Exposure: 1/125 sec.
I wouldn't shoot hand-held at anything under 1/250, always use a tripod. You may think 1/125 is quick but it isn't. I've never had a problem with how sharp that lens is, probably at its best at f/8.0.With a nice heavy NIKON DSLR sharp images are easy obtainable down to at least a 30th, even car to car.
Tripods are a must but seriously slow down any shoot.
Edited by pixelpimp on Tuesday 30th March 22:04
OK - thank you all for your input. It sounds as though I need to worry less about the absolute sharpness of the RAW images and concentrate more on my composition and post-processing skills.
Given that, any comments about the post-processing of this image?
Could the sharpness be improved in any way?
Given that, any comments about the post-processing of this image?
Could the sharpness be improved in any way?
AcidReflux said:
Given that, any comments about the post-processing of this image?
Well, it depends how you want it to look 
AcidReflux said:
Could the sharpness be improved in any way?
I can only judge the resized sample you posted, and I would say it is slightly oversharpened, as evidence by a whitish line on the high contrast edges. The amount of sharpening you need to apply depends on the pixel size of the image - curiously, from my own experiences, the smaller it is, the more sharpening you need to apply - it does not become 'sharper' with reducing size as was the case with film negatives/prints. I find the best way is 'Unsharp Mask' in Photoshop, where you have complete control over it and a live preview.I'd also suggest that so long as an image is made up of square pixels, and is viewed on a monitor made of more square pixels, such a thing as 'sharp' is impossible
(NB: The above may or may not be technically correct, just my conclusions from my own experience processing about 35,000 RAW images one by one)
Simpo Two said:
AcidReflux said:
Given that, any comments about the post-processing of this image?
Well, it depends how you want it to look 
Fair point.I see what you mean about the sharpening causing a sort of tight halo along some of the edges. It looks far from being a magazine-quality shot though, yet I see photos posted here all the time at a similar resolution that look like they could be: the yellow lambo in //dean's profile has that sort of clarity. I'd love to know why there's this gulf of difference.
I've put my name down for the PH studio day at the end of April. I hope I'll learn a lot more then about this sort of thing and the chance to see what a pro can do with kit like mine will prove whether it's me or the machine that needs the most work. (And yes, I can guess which it'll be
)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff