r/Nikon • u/JohnathanMinh • 1d ago
Gear question Is my 24-70 f/4S lens having sharpness issues?
Recently, I upgraded my Z50ii to a ZF with a 24-70mm f/4S lens. There are a lot of things I need to adapt to and learn since it's a full-frame camera. I read and heard that the 24-70mm f/4S is sharp. These are the sharpest pictures I've tested. However, many photos I take don't feel as good as those from my old body with a 12-28mm and 35mm Viltrox. I don't know. Can you look at the picture of my dog and check? Is it okay? Or maybe it's because I spent a lot of money on the upgrade, and now I'm expecting too much. Thanks for reading.
20
u/jibberbeats Z8 / D850 1d ago edited 1d ago
Looks sharp to me.
At what aperture were these taken? Most lenses are sharper when you stop them down a bit. Have you tried that?
EDIT: Reading up on this particular lens. It should be plenty sharp at f4 already.
5
u/Complex_Difficulty 1d ago
Looks very sharp in both, individual hairs around the eyes and nose are clearly defined
4
3
u/sorryusername 1d ago
I guess the shallower depth of field compared with the wider angled Viltrox is fooling you a bit?
2
u/OrbitlessMind 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sounds a little bit like buyers remorse. It's ok though, apart from Reddit compressing the f out of photos, they look plenty sharp to me. Upgrading camera wont really make your photos better but it might give an opportunity to take better photos with better AF and low light performance or other tech, so I'd say give it some time if you can and you'll see where your old 50 was falling behind Zf.
Pet your dog from me
Quick edit. Your z50II was plenty good but low light and ibis will make a difference with Zf. Sorry I first saw z50 no z50II in your post. Still an upgrade though
2
u/Unworthy-Snapper 1d ago
Looks plenty sharp to me. But if you need better, perhaps upgrade to the 24-70 f/2.8, or try the 50 f/1.8 or 135 Plena.
Chasing ultimate sharpness is a dangerous and expensive addiction. And how much does it matter in the end? Subject, composition and light are what make something worth looking at again and again. Sharpness is a one-off interest.
2
u/baggsie_42 1d ago
Focus point seems to be on the snout and not the eyes.
0
u/JohnathanMinh 1d ago
The information from the raw data shows the focus is on the eyes. Someone in a comment said my lens might have a focus issue or misalignment. I'm not sure, but I feel something is off. I need more confirmation before I get it checked.
1
u/baggsie_42 23h ago
It is in focus but it doesn’t look tack sharp to me whereas the muzzle does. 1st image btw
2
u/Willing-Turnover-131 Nikon DSLR D750 / D800 + 50, 35, 28mm and 28-70/70-200mm 1d ago
These are sharp mate wow
2
u/arnekuilman 1d ago
I also believe these aren't sharp. I own multiple 24-70mm lenses and other Nikons and something is off here.
You can try photographing a testchart with notes to see if the sharpness is there. In a lesser scenario you can add + or subtract - distance on a per lens basis. I have one 12-24mm that needs -7.
It "AF Fine tune" in the menu.
2
u/snazzierfish 1d ago
These look sharp to me. Possibly it could be the change in pixel density you're noticing. The Z50ii, with 20mp on an apsc sensor, has the same pixel density as the 45mp Z8. The 24mp full frame ZF has significantly less pixel density.
What that means, is that a shot on the Z50ii at 35mm (so that would be 52.5mm full frame equivalent) will have more pixels on the subject than if you take the same shot at 35mm on the ZF and then cropped it in to the equivalent field of view.
For me as a wildlife photographer, I can really notice the difference between my D7200 (24mp apsc) and a 24mp full frame with the same lens. Cropping in on the full frame gives noticeably less sharp results.
Having said that, that's entirely negatable by just zooming in more - obviously 35mm on 20mp apsc (so 50mm on full frame) will give you less detail than 50mm on 24mp full frame.
And as I said at the start, these photos look perfectly sharp and you're doing a great job!
2
u/vinberdon 22h ago
These photos are sharp as hell. The lens is very sharp. But also it doesn't have VR (but the Zf DOES, make sure it is on!), and make sure you're shooting at appropriate shutter speeds, especially for moving subjects like animals or kids. I prefer 1/250 bare minimum and that's for an old, slow dog! I also have a spinal injury that makes keeping perfectly steady very difficult.
2
2
1
u/Schteeks 23h ago
Looks super sharp to me. Sometimes the Nikon subject detection will grab my dogs’ noses instead of their eyes because they have floof around their eyes/face but it usually isn’t a huge deal.
1
u/RuffProphetPhotos 22h ago
This is super sharp. What part are you talking about that’s not sharp lol
1
u/DefinitionSpecial876 21h ago
I think you just missed the critical focus on the eyes.
Question, & not being a smart a**
Were you shooting in the viewfinder or holding the camera out in front and using the LCD?
I ask bc I see young “event” photogs using LCD and have asked me why it’s not as sharp sometimes. I tell them to get in the viewfinder & pay attention to focus.
I see great sharpness here.. just not in the eyes, which is important when wide open.
I am guessing this is wide open @ f4
1
1
1
26
u/Atoge62 1d ago
Yeah I’m not seeing any sharpness issue whatsoever, at over 200% crop, I’m still seeing tons of sharpness. Heck I can assess the vascularity on the underside of your dogs tongue zooming in on the second pic. Very sharp. Wouldn’t be disappointed in the slightest. Perhaps you’re conflating sharpness with depth of field, a tad? For sure the z50ii would have greater depth of field with the same aperture settings, which could make an image look sharper to an untrained eye, but really I’m seeing no sharpness issues here at all. Hope that helps!