Lens problem

[Ed Rooney]

Gen is straightened by all the beautiful wildlife Down-under. The only wildlife I've encountered here is a couple of LFC fans who had too many beers. 

[gvallee]

2 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

Gen must have some muscle strength to carry that lot around. 😀

 

Cough cough... you can't stalk birds, they see you from miles away. So with the 500mm, I either shoot from a hide which are a short walking distance or on an off-chance near where I'm standing.

 

An amusing anecdote was when I got up for sunrise at a beach. I had a huge dilemma: would there be birds to photograph, if not I would miss on wide angle sunrise shots. I couldn't possibly take the tripod, and equipment for both. So I got hubby to help. He also took a folding chair with him. It turned out that there were no waders, so I left him sitting on his chair with the 500mm. Some passerby asked him if he had been successful with his photography. He replied: I will let you in my secret. I'm only the donkey. She's over there.

[Ed Rooney]

I captured the giant sea turtles on Heron Island on my only visit to Australia. Thrilling!

[NYCat]

I am definitely not one of the experts here but I can attest that the newer 80-400 is significantly better than the original one. Maybe check some of the reviews.

 

Paulette

[MDM]

10 minutes ago, gvallee said:

 

Cough cough... you can't stalk birds, they see you from miles away. So with the 500mm, I either shoot from a hide which are a short walking distance or on an off-chance near where I'm standing.

 

An amusing anecdote was when I got up for sunrise at a beach. I had a huge dilemma: would there be birds to photograph, if not I would miss on wide angle sunrise shots. I couldn't possibly take the tripod, and equipment for both. So I got hubby to help. He also took a folding chair with him. It turned out that there were no waders, so I left him sitting on his chair with the 500mm. Some passerby asked him if he had been successful with his photography. He replied: I will let you in my secret. I'm only the donkey. She's over there.

 

Yes I get my wife to help me carry gear too. She thought it had stopped when I got the Z7 with the little 24-70 which with the in-body stabilisation covers a lot of situations. But then I discovered video - back to the tripod with massive video head plus all the bits and pieces. 😀

[gvallee]

10 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

I captured the giant sea turtles on Heron Island on my only visit to Australia. Thrilling!

 

Not on Alamy?

[gvallee]

10 minutes ago, NYCat said:

I am definitely not one of the experts here but I can attest that the newer 80-400 is significantly better than the original one. Maybe check some of the reviews.

 

Paulette

 

Thanks Paulette. I have read that the new one is much faster at focusing and also has a shorter minimum focusing distance. Two of my bugbears about it. The one thing I didn't like reading is that it's slightly bigger and heavier. The last thing I need! Right now, instinct is telling me that it will be my choice option. We'll see. Good to hear an opinion from a user.

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by gvallee

[Ed Rooney]

1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

Not on Alamy?

 

Oh no—that was back in the '70s

[Betty LaRue]

Gen, your image is 100% crop. What does it look like without cropping? Are the lines noticeable?  If you used it to photograph the turtles, would the images be unusable?

Girlfriend, your problem is causing me distress!! 

Betty

(PS. I once “stalked” a Great Blue Heron. It was bitterly cold and the bird was huddled on the bank of a lake. I spent 20 minutes shuffling my feet forward inch by inch until I was close enough to get a decent shot with said 80-400.)

I do realize the heron probably didn’t want to disperse the heat in its fluffed feathers by flying away. It even put up with the snuffling of my red, runny nose.

Edited August 11, 2020 by Betty LaRue

[Colin Woods]

I am looking at either the Sigma or Tamron 100-400mm. At the moment I have the 24-120mm and the 70-200mm, so my tele zoom is just there for 120-200mm. I think I will sell it and get one of the 100-400mm. They get pretty good reviews as far as I have looked at the moment - I am still in the early musing stages and not yet ready to actually get one. If anyone on here has actual real-life info on either of these itwould be appreciated.

[shearwater]

On 11/08/2020 at 02:31, gvallee said:

 

Thank you for your input Jaime. You might be on to something. I just did a very quick test without the filter and it would appear that I can't see any lines at f/5.6 and some minor ones at f/8. Did I change the filter recently? I might have, I don't remember. I just shifting camp today so I will do a more serious test when I can. I'll be without internet for a week from Thursday.

 

 

 

You are welcome, Genevieve. Just trying to help. When I saw you photo, it reminded me my experience.

This is a 100% crop of one image I took with the 300mm f4 and the cheap filter I mentioned:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2553u8fz2uuofdt/_DSC1914_crop.jpg?dl=0

 

 

You can see the lines in the out of focus areas. Are they similar to yours?
Image data: f5.6 1/1250. The image itself is useless…the bird is soft anyway. And most of that sessions. Lines didn’t appear in everyone. Flat backgrounds like blue sky didn’t show any problem.
The 300mm f4D hasn’t got VR, so no problem with that.
Those lines dissapeared when I put a brand new B&W filter, and throw the cheap filter to the bin

 

I tried myself that lens, the 80-400mm, borrowed from a friend for a couple of days, before buying the 300mm. I didn’t like it. Rather slow…and very soft in most of the images (some were decent, but not consistent). So I decided for the 300mm and a 1.4TC. With my D90, it is 630mm effective focal. I like it, but I miss the VR. I have to spend more dedicated time with it, because I don't usually take it with me in my hikes.
I undestand your gap between 35mm and 500mm if you lose the 80-400mm. Not sure which lens to recommend, but i would maybe buy a “shorter” zoom, like the 70-200 (there is a quite good-for-traveling f4 version, haven´t try it) and stick with the 500mm for the birds.

Regards

P.D. I love your 4WD Toyota Coaster…it looks like it can take you wherever you want. Enjoy your trip with the turtles. Sure we will all envy you in the meantime.

 

Edited August 22, 2020 by shearwater

[wiskerke]

10 hours ago, gvallee said:

 

BINGO WIM!! The diagnostic from the Nikon repairer is VR which would require a fix.

 

I bought that lens in London over 10 years ago, so it must be the early model. The fact is I hate this lens. It is infuriatingly slow to focus and I use it almost exclusively for bird photography. The big plus is its zoom range of course. Would you have any suggestion what other lens could I replace it with? I don't follow news of new hardware unless I have to. 

 

If you're happy with the image quality, the successor was better in all respects. But it's going at twice the price used.

The old ones go from 450 US upwards and the new versions from 900 US.

The old ones are abundant in Japan. Not checked the new version though.

 

The difference is easy to spot: the old one has an aperture ring; in the new one the aperture is set on the body.

 

Here's a side by side image.

Here's the side by side specs on dpreview.

 

Here's the dxo lens database which alas is not being maintained as it used to be. They're mainly into phones now I guess.

But all relevant lenses are still in there. You have to check current street prices yourself of course.

Sharpness is the relevant column. Set things like mount and maybe check something like the super telephoto box.

It is very useful to see the whole field though. Especially to see where the lenses you like most are sitting. That gives you a ball park of where to look. No use looking for a quality that's far below or beyond you're using now.

For US readers: but do keep an eye out for the left field.

In this case: maybe try the outlier Tamron SP 150-600mm which may be just the ticket. Quicker but even softer than the older Nikkor, however: 600mm!

So you will need some good PP skills. The price used will be nearer to the old Nikkor.

(The Northrups about it on youtube)

 

I have a small collection of 400 to 600mm lenses because I got inspired by Andreas Feininger at one point:

 

 

 

 

(This would probably be the equivalent of a 1200 to 1500mm.)

 

I have converted some old manual lenses as well, and yes it all works. But as soon as things start to move, it's a whole lot more difficult. And modern quality is a lot better than those sixties and seventies lenses. Feininger got around it by shooting 4x5. His use of long lenses was all about perspective btw.

 

     

(not my picture)          Mine at 1200mm

Edit: in the left picture you can see both the windmill and the same church tower.

 

After renting some modern long lenses and working with a lot less forgiving Sony, I've stopped f.. ehhm tinkering around with that old glass. But hey it might work for you.

 

wim

Edited August 11, 2020 by wiskerke

[MDM]

2 hours ago, shearwater said:

 

You are welcome, Genevieve. Just trying to help. When I saw you photo, it reminded me my experience.

This is a 100% crop of one image I took with the 300mm f4 and the cheap filter I mentioned:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2553u8fz2uuofdt/_DSC1914_crop.jpg?dl=0

 

You can see the lines in the out of focus areas. Are they similar to yours?
Image data: f5.6 1/1250. The image itself is useless…the bird is soft anyway. And most of that sessions. Lines didn’t appear in everyone. Flat backgrounds like blue sky didn’t show any problem.
The 300mm f4 hasn’t got VR, so no problem with that.
Those lines dissapeared when I put a brand new B&W filter, and throw the cheap filter to the bin

 

 

 

 

Thanks for posting that image. The pattern looks so similar to the one on Gen's lens. I have never seen anything like this but I guess if it can be caused by a bad filter then it can be caused by something inside the lens.

[shearwater]

4 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Thanks for posting that image. The pattern looks so similar to the one on Gen's lens. I have never seen anything like this but I guess if it can be caused by a bad filter then it can be caused by something inside the lens.

 

Yes, I suppose it could happen anything similar with something wrong inside the lens too.
Light plays strange games inside our equipments 😎

 

[MDM]

21 minutes ago, shearwater said:

 

Yes, I suppose it could happen anything similar with something wrong inside the lens too.
Light plays strange games inside our equipments 😎

 

The two textures are incredibly similar for sure suggesting a similar cause. It is good to be aware of things like this in case it ever happens. I had a high quality UV  filter last year that developed a pattern in the glass that I could only describe as crazy, like a stress pattern but it never showed in any images. I dumped it and bought a new one. 

[Vincent Lowe]

There's an old thread (2017) on dpreview about this, or similar, phenomena.  After wading through the usual dross you often get on dpreview it really doesn't come to any sort of definitive conclusion, but some people claim to have cured it by removing the cheap filter....

 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4141354

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by Vincent Lowe

[wiskerke]

10 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said:

There's an old thread (2017) on dpreview about this, or similar, phenomena.  After wading through the usual dross you often get on dpreview it really doesn't come to any sort of definitive conclusion, but some people claim to have cured it by removing the cheap filter....

 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4141354

 

 

Well spotted!

So Gen, it may not need a repair after all. Or it may, but that wouldn't resolve the problem.

I would do some testing with everything manual on a sturdy tripod. Use the self timer or a remote.

 

wim

[gvallee]

I'm just waking up, in fact I'm reading from my bed. THANK YOU EVERYONE. As soon as I am fully awake and had my coffee, I will reply to you guys. There seems to be a glimmer of hope. I actually did a very quick test yesterday without the filter and I could not see any lines. 

[gvallee]

HUGE RELIEF!! I've done a series of tests based on Wim's recommendations and I can confirm that the problem is definitely with the filter.

With filter = lines, no filter = no lines.

 

I must have switched filter recently, I don't remember. It is a Kenko MC UV. I never buy cheap stuff, not even second-hand, only high end equipment. I had a quick search and it sounds like this filter is a cheapy. Don't know how it found its way into my bag. I will buy a proper one. At least I can proceed in peace with my trip.

 

Guys I can't tell you how grateful I am to you. I had a heart attack when I googled the price of a replacement 80-400mm. It would have cost me around A$3k!! No!!!

 

Jaime: your diagnostic was right, thank you. And yes, the lines in your image are similar to mine.

 

Wim: what can I say. You've replied extensively. So glad we have Forum members like you. FYI, my lens is the new one.

 

Betty: thank you. Yes I have salvaged those images, it took a very long time, they are now on Alamy.

 

Mark Chapman: without you being aware, thank you for the tip to use the blur tool. It saved the day.

 

Vincent: you were on the right track. Thank you.

 

MDM: thank you for your input too.

 

Paulette: thank you for chipping in.

 

THANK YOU ALL AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU!!

 

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by gvallee

[MDM]

 

13 minutes ago, gvallee said:

HUGE RELIEF!! I've done a series of tests based on Wim's recommendations and I can confirm that the problem is definitely with the filter.

With filter = lines, no filter = no lines.

 

I must have switched filter recently, I don't remember. It is a Kenko MC UV. I never buy cheap stuff, not even second-hand, only high end equipment. I had a quick search and it sounds like this filter is a cheapy. Don't know how it found its way into my bag. I will buy a proper one. At least I can proceed in peace with my trip.

 

Guys I can't tell you how grateful I am to you. I had a heart attack when I googled the price of a replacement 80-400mm. It would have cost me around A$3k!! No!!!

 

Jaime: your diagnostic was right, thank you. And yes, the lines in your image are similar to mine.

 

Wim: what can I say. You've replied extensively. So glad we have Forum members like you. FYI, my lens is the new one.

 

Betty: thank you. Yes I have salvaged those images, it took a very long time, they are now on Alamy.

 

Mark Chapman: without you being aware, thank you for the tip to use the blur tool. It saved the day.

 

Vincent: you were on the right track. Thank you.

 

MDM: thank you for your input too.

 

Paulette: thank you for chipping in.

 

THANK YOU ALL AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU!!

 

 

 

Good you got it solved Gen. Just for general info, there are several different grades of Kenko filters, some of which are very expensive and very good quality and other cheap ones like the one you have. There is also a big market in fakes apparently. 

 

 

[Chuck Nacke]

That is great news for you Gen,

 

One lens I would suggest to anyone looking for long and heavy fast glass is the SYGMA 120-300 f2.8

w/o VR (was told the last version of this lens w/o VR is sharper) Have been using mine for several

years and have been really impressed with it on D800's.  I've heard good things about it with

a 1.4 extender, but have never bothered to try it.  I have an old NIKKOR 600 f4, very old.

 

Chuck

[shearwater]

9 hours ago, gvallee said:

HUGE RELIEF!! I've done a series of tests based on Wim's recommendations and I can confirm that the problem is definitely with the filter.

With filter = lines, no filter = no lines.

 

I must have switched filter recently, I don't remember. It is a Kenko MC UV. I never buy cheap stuff, not even second-hand, only high end equipment. I had a quick search and it sounds like this filter is a cheapy. Don't know how it found its way into my bag. I will buy a proper one. At least I can proceed in peace with my trip.

 

Guys I can't tell you how grateful I am to you. I had a heart attack when I googled the price of a replacement 80-400mm. It would have cost me around A$3k!! No!!!

 

Jaime: your diagnostic was right, thank you. And yes, the lines in your image are similar to mine.

 

Wim: what can I say. You've replied extensively. So glad we have Forum members like you. FYI, my lens is the new one.

 

Betty: thank you. Yes I have salvaged those images, it took a very long time, they are now on Alamy.

 

Mark Chapman: without you being aware, thank you for the tip to use the blur tool. It saved the day.

 

Vincent: you were on the right track. Thank you.

 

MDM: thank you for your input too.

 

Paulette: thank you for chipping in.

 

THANK YOU ALL AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU!!

 

 

 

Great news!

I was very convince when I saw your photo...it was so similar to mines. But you never know until you test it troughfully. About filters, as MDM says, there is a huge counterfeit market, and many very hard to identify.

What a relief for you in your new trip. Hope you get wonderful images with it. If it is the new 80-400, then it is much better than the old one.

You only owe to all of us a ride on your Coaster!  🚐 😄

 

[Harry Harrison]

Looks like a good outcome, I wonder if anyone could speculate as to what particular aspect of this cheap filter could cause this and by what process.

[MDM]

3 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Looks like a good outcome, I wonder if anyone could speculate as to what particular aspect of this cheap filter could cause this and by what process.

Are you giving prizes for the best answer? 😀I have no idea really but there is no harm in speculating. The regular lines look like some sort of diffraction or interference pattern maybe caused by some regular microscopic defect in the filter? 

[Harry Harrison]

14 minutes ago, MDM said:

The regular lines look like some sort of diffraction or interference pattern maybe caused by some regular microscopic defect in the filter? 

No prizes, or at least I can't think of one, but it would be nice to figure out what's going on, I agree that diffraction/interference seems most likely. If I was a high-end filter manufacturer I'd be using these sort of examples to scare the living daylights out of anyone tempted to buy cheap filters. Not a big filter user myself so it's certainly never happened to me, could also be associated with long lenses I suppose. I'm surprised it's not something that's come up more often with sports or wildlife photographers.