Pictures taken with Sony 70-200/f4 (A7II) not so sharp

[UglyBob]

I used my new Sony 70-200/f4 on a weekend trip recently and took a lot of street photos using this lens. Looks OK on screen and also at home, until I zoom in. Then most pictures are a little bit un-sharp, like if it isn't really focused. I used f-values between 4-7.1 and shutter speed of at least 1/400, so I don't think movement is a problem. And the edges are not fuzzy, it is more like you can't see the smallest details, like pores in the skin etc. Is my lens in need of calibration of what can the problem be? I'm very new to this kind of tele-lenses, so I don't know. I use AF single with medium spot btw and aim for anywhere on the face.

 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

This lens has good overall image quality but it is a little soft at pixel-level. Pretty much what you are describing. To determine if your photos are unusually soft, you can look up images taken with the same gear. Flickr is a good source. Alternatively, you can post examples here.

[danardi]

any example?

[UglyBob]

Here is an example with f7.1 and 1/400 shutter speed, settings I would expect would get a super sharp result...

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1901uvd25ox19md/_DSC5183.ARW?dl=0

 

Here is another example where the focus seem to be more right on spot:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2m7qu7inkizjmm3/_DSC4825.ARW?dl=0

 

It could surely be my fault too, I'm still learning to use this lens. But I really want to get to the bottom with this, going on a safari in June and would be sad to come home with a bunch of fuzzy pictures...

[tinplater]

I suspect it is your fault; I have the same lens and it is capable of producing razor sharp images, but holding the camera steady, depressing the shutter smoothly and just general technique (be sure OSS is on of course) is the key.  At 200mm I recommend a shutter speed greater than 1/400 if you can.  Easy to confirm...place your camera on a tripod, use remote or shutter delay, and then attempt to duplicate the same pictures hand held.  For some reason the links to your photos didn't work for me. 

[danardi]

I don't understand your issue.. In the focus I see sharp details

[Guest all8]

I don't understand your issue.. In the focus I see sharp details

 

Looked fine to me too. Some sharpening PP to crispen things a little, otherwise OK.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Those photos look normal for the lens. If you have been using a good normal prime lens you may be accustomed to a level of sharpness that you will not achieve with a tele zoom. Just accept it and focus on the overall quality of the photo.

[UglyBob]

Ok, I guess, but in the example with the man and the boy, I kinda think the football and the old mans hands are much sharper than his face, and I'm pretty sure I put my focus point on his face...

[danardi]

Ok, than we all agree that the gear can get sharp images.

Probably you are looking for more accurate focusing. You can check your gear with a static subject and a static camera holder (tripod)

[Jeffreykmd]

I would use a tripod. I would also look at what focus settings you are using on your camera. Your pictures otherwise look fine

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[UglyBob]

Yes, will do! Maybe someone has some good settings to use for street photo with that lens? I mean for this type of street photography...

[tinplater]

Yes, will do! Maybe someone has some good settings to use for street photo with that lens? I mean for this type of street photography...

It is not a lens that lends itself well to street photography...long, white, heavy, not very fast, and too tele.  I would favor a prime in the 24 to 35 range myself.

[danardi]

It is not a lens that lends itself well to street photography...long, white, heavy, not very fast, and too tele.  I would favor a prime in the 24 to 35 range myself.

[UglyBob]

So what should I expect the lens to be good at? Taking still objects at a distance? No people? No animals? I mean cause you say it's slow... Then it is imo a shitty tele lens. :/

[danardi]

So what should I expect the lens to be good at? Taking still objects at a distance? No people? No animals? I mean cause you say it's slow... Then it is imo a shitty tele lens. :/

Why you say that?

We have checked that your gear is ok.

Wildlife photography is not an easy work. You'll need a lot of exercise with AF-C mode with in subjects. With far subject probably 200mm will not enough, it depend on your safari type.

[Guest all8]

That lens responds well to being "Manually Focused". Try it ...

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

You probably need to get a feel for how af works. If you use AF-C focus will slip sometimes. If you use AF-S the object may move out of focus.

 

Just get some practice and the photos will improve. I shot street portraits with manual focus for years. It's entirely possible. Just don't think of your camera as fully automatic. Your handling matters too.

[Username]

I used my new Sony 70-200/f4 on a weekend trip recently and took a lot

of street photos using this lens. Looks OK on screen and also at home,

until I zoom in. Then most pictures are a little bit un-sharp, like if it isn't

really focused. I used f-values between 4-7.1 and shutter speed of at

least 1/400, so I don't think movement is a problem. And the edges are

not fuzzy, it is more like you can't see the smallest details, like pores in

the skin etc. Is my lens in need of calibration of what can the problem be?

I'm very new to this kind of tele-lenses, so I don't know. I use AF single

with medium spot btw and aim for anywhere on the face.

    

1. Not all photos are meant to be 'zoomed in on'. And I'm 

referring to many great images. Viewing a successful photo 

is not the same as pixel peeping.  

   

2. Focus is your responsibility, not the lens's ... even in AF.

You will improve with some practice. The lens will not. But 

that is a very good lens already. 

   

3. Aperture 4.0 to 7.1 ? From wide open to not quite two full 

stops down ? No problem making fine images, but this isn't 

how you make "pixel-peeper-winners" ... not that it matters :-)  

   

4. 1/400 sec ? At 200mm, 1/250 is the generally accepted 

MINIMUM handheld speed, for a very careful, very steady 

shooting. You're only one stop above that at 1/400. You do 

get some improvement from IS, but improvement is not the 

same idea as miracles.  

   

5. Pores in the skin ? See "3." above !  

  

6. Calibration ? Mythology. Delete the word from your head.   

   

In general, I detect an expectation that technology can and 

will produce uncompromising extreme IQ, if only you could 

learn how to "supervise" the robot properly ... choose best 

settings, modes, etc, acting as its supervisor. Turn that idea 

on its head. The technology sets limits on what you can do.  

You are, theoretically, under its thumb. It will stubbornly just 

refuse to go where it cannot, on its own, go. You can't be the 

supervisor. You hafta be an actual hands-on eyes-wide-open

practitioner. The robot will assist you, convenience you, etc,  

within the limits of its ability, and nothing more. 

[UglyBob]

You probably need to get a feel for how af works. If you use AF-C focus will slip sometimes. If you use AF-S the object may move out of focus.

 

Just get some practice and the photos will improve. I shot street portraits with manual focus for years. It's entirely possible. Just don't think of your camera as fully automatic. Your handling matters too.

 

Valid points, but in this case it was perfectly sunny and people hardly moved at all. Still only a few pictures felt really crisp. I just thought this was a lens that would perform better than that, I've heard many people use 70-200 for portraits as well. Then I'm not so familiar with the lens yet of course, not really sure about what aperture or shutter speed to pick for certain situations and focal length. Here is an example what I did expect of the lens though:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/66174868@N02/19290725553

 

And also, I would really want to make sure it is me and not the lens, so I have a good starting point to improve from.

[UglyBob]

1. Not all photos are meant to be 'zoomed in on'. And I'm 

referring to many great images. Viewing a successful photo 

is not the same as pixel peeping.  

   

2. Focus is your responsibility, not the lens's ... even in AF.

You will improve with some practice. The lens will not. But 

that is a very good lens already. 

   

3. Aperture 4.0 to 7.1 ? From wide open to not quite two full 

stops down ? No problem making fine images, but this isn't 

how you make "pixel-peeper-winners" ... not that it matters :-)  

   

4. 1/400 sec ? At 200mm, 1/250 is the generally accepted 

MINIMUM handheld speed, for a very careful, very steady 

shooting. You're only one stop above that at 1/400. You do 

get some improvement from IS, but improvement is not the 

same idea as miracles.  

   

5. Pores in the skin ? See "3." above !  

  

6. Calibration ? Mythology. Delete the word from your head.   

   

In general, I detect an expectation that technology can and 

will produce uncompromising extreme IQ, if only you could 

learn how to "supervise" the robot properly ... choose best 

settings, modes, etc, acting as its supervisor. Turn that idea 

on its head. The technology sets limits on what you can do.  

You are, theoretically, under its thumb. It will stubbornly just 

refuse to go where it cannot, on its own, go. You can't be the 

supervisor. You hafta be an actual hands-on eyes-wide-open

practitioner. The robot will assist you, convenience you, etc,  

within the limits of its ability, and nothing more. 

 

Good points too, I will just add some questions about your statements:

 

1. I agree, I just feel like if occasionally a picture gets really crisp, then I feel like the lens has a potential to take really good pictures and I want to improve the number of pictures that are that good.

 

2. I'm sure I have a lot to learn here, I just feel that taking still images of people being lazy in the sun with AF-S and fast enough shutter speed should be kind of easy. But even then I see most pictures as soft.

 

3. Please ellaborate. I thought this lens was as sharpest aroung 5.6 and up?

 

4. Ok, good to know, I will take this tip with me and try some more with faster shutter speed!

 

5. See 3

 

6. Is that really so? In other forums I read a lot about people calibrating there lenses, that the auto-focus are not always spot on. You say it's not so?

[beunky]

Calibration or microadjustment is not an issue with mirrorless cameras. That is because of the way AF works: directly on the sensor and not via a secondary system like with DSLR.

[UglyBob]

Calibration or microadjustment is not an issue with mirrorless cameras. That is because of the way AF works: directly on the sensor and not via a secondary system like with DSLR.

 

Ah, of course, that makes sense! Thank you!

[tinplater]

UglyB, did you do as I suggested and place the lens on a tripod and carefully take test exposure removing the variability of camera/subject movement?  Those exposures should answer the question whether it is your fault or the lens' or perhaps too high expectations.  My copy will absolutely resolve eye lashes, skin pores when taken at a distance and focal length that the portrait face fills the frame, but hard (for me at least) to hand hold with stability 100% of the time.

[UglyBob]

UglyB, did you do as I suggested and place the lens on a tripod and carefully take test exposure removing the variability of camera/subject movement?  Those exposures should answer the question whether it is your fault or the lens' or perhaps too high expectations.  My copy will absolutely resolve eye lashes, skin pores when taken at a distance and focal length that the portrait face fills the frame, but hard (for me at least) to hand hold with stability 100% of the time.

 

No, but I will definitely try it this week. Will let you know how it went. Thanks for now!