Announcement

**Ross the fiddler** · 3 April 2011, 01:05 PM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

If this isn't as sharp as you would expect on the E3, it might be one of those occasions that you be could wishing for the fine AF adjustments on the E30 & E5 to recallibrate the camera for that lens. I believe there was that sort of issue with the 14-35 & 35-100 on the E3 in some instances.

Nice photos of the train & rural scene. Maybe we could arrange for another photo shoot of the XPT & I could sling some mud as it passes here & you could try to get a focussed shot of the mud splat when it reaches you down there. Well, maybe not, but it sounded like a fun idea initially.

**Greytop** · 3 April 2011, 01:27 PM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

I like the rail and sleepers shot Mark.

With regard to sharpness I agree with Ross, if that 100% crop is representative of your 50-200 @ f/5.6 and 200mm I would say it does look a little on soft side.

Might be worth doing some tests, tripod mounted with remote release and mirror lock up? Can be a pain but it would confirm for sure whether focus calibration is required.

**Guest** · 3 April 2011, 04:38 PM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Originally posted by Ross the fiddler View Post

If this isn't as sharp as you would expect on the E3, it might be one of those occasions that you be could wishing for the fine AF adjustments on the E30 & E5 to recallibrate the camera for that lens. I believe there was that sort of issue with the 14-35 & 35-100 on the E3 in some instances.

Nice photos of the train & rural scene. Maybe we could arrange for another photo shoot of the XPT & I could sling some mud as it passes here & you could try to get a focussed shot of the mud splat when it reaches you down there. Well, maybe not, but it sounded like a fun idea initially.

Originally posted by Greytop View Post

I like the rail and sleepers shot Mark.

With regard to sharpness I agree with Ross, if that 100% crop is representative of your 50-200 @ f/5.6 and 200mm I would say it does look a little on soft side.

Might be worth doing some tests, tripod mounted with remote release and mirror lock up? Can be a pain but it would confirm for sure whether focus calibration is required.

Thanks Ross and Huw - I am wondering whether I should calibrate the lens - I did not do so on receiving it as I was unsure as to whether it needed to be or not.

My expectation of this lens's sharpness arises out of what I got from similar shots with the 70-300. Edit: (not to mention price!)

**Cathrine Stephansen** · 3 April 2011, 06:49 PM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Yes, it looks a bit soft to me, too.

But I'm wondering why you are using such high ISOs on the E3 and then under-exposing -0.3 EV? I would go as low as possible on the ISO for the shutter speed you want with the E3, it seems to loose detail and become noisy at above ISO 400. Your landscape with the house is ISO 100, but I'd try a smaller aperture than 5.6 for better depth of field. Every little thing helps!

**Zuiko** · 3 April 2011, 08:20 PM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Was your point of focus on the barn, Mark? You get very little DOF at f5.6, 300mm equivalent.

**Guest** · 3 April 2011, 11:03 PM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Originally posted by Cathrine Spikkerud View Post

Yes, it looks a bit soft to me, too.

But I'm wondering why you are using such high ISOs on the E3 and then under-exposing -0.3 EV? I would go as low as possible on the ISO for the shutter speed you want with the E3, it seems to loose detail and become noisy at above ISO 400. Your landscape with the house is ISO 100, but I'd try a smaller aperture than 5.6 for better depth of field. Every little thing helps!

The Train shots, ISO500 was set to provide a fast enough shutter 1/640 to 'stop' the train and dropped to ISO400*1/200*F5.6 for the static shot.
Due to our high contrast summer light I set exposure comp' at -0.3 EV to control the highlights and let shadow tones fall where they will.
Those are easily adjusted with Adobe CS3/4 (I run both).

(edited line) > The Barn shot at ISO100/F5.6 was to create some background bokeh, which hasn't really worked. F3.5 @ 1/2560 may have achieved that effect - Well as you can see, I'm still feeling my way with this lens, dear Cathrine ... you are a hard task mistress!

Originally posted by Zuiko View Post

Was your point of focus on the barn, Mark? You get very little DOF at f5.6, 300mm equivalent.

John, the POF on the barn was on the 100% cropped section but nowhere across the plane is it sharp. Horizontal lines show a wavy aberrationthat I find hard to attribute to a heat haze effect sometimes seen in long lens compression. The barn was at approximately 300 metres.
On the question of DOF, As a further example please consider an alternative image taken from the same location at 200mm @ 1/320 @ f/8.0 @ ISO100 @ -0.3 EV with no PP adjustments except sizing.

Out of camera uncropped.

100% crop - no adjustments

100% crop (note the wavy horizontals)

**Guest** · 4 April 2011, 11:40 PM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Edited version

**Cathrine Stephansen** · 5 April 2011, 06:10 AM

**Zuiko** · 5 April 2011, 08:08 AM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

These results do rather suggest something within the lens is out of alignment. Did you buy it new?

**Ian** · 5 April 2011, 09:12 AM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

First of all, an un-sharpened and un-processed 100% crop (presumably from RAW) will look soft. Sharpening is usually required.

Secondly, it looks like a hot day and heat haze may have come into play?

You must have been over a hundred feet from the shack, so I estimate depth of field in total would be around 25 feet, more than adequate assuming focus was correct.

Were you using a tripod or another steady support and, if so, did you remember to switch IS off?

Ian

**Guest** · 6 April 2011, 12:06 AM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Originally posted by Zuiko View Post

These results do rather suggest something within the lens is out of alignment. Did you buy it new?

Originally posted by Ian View Post

First of all, an un-sharpened and un-processed 100% crop (presumably from RAW) will look soft. Sharpening is usually required.

Secondly, it looks like a hot day and heat haze may have come into play?

You must have been over a hundred feet from the shack, so I estimate depth of field in total would be around 25 feet, more than adequate assuming focus was correct.

Were you using a tripod or another steady support and, if so, did you remember to switch IS off?

Ian

Thanks Cathrine, John and Ian.

I bought mine new online from B&H, NY, USA.

John, it was 24'Celsius, perfect autumn day that we call quite warm but not hot.

(Edited) Ian, Distance to subject approx 300 metres. I don't shoot RAW as I get better and faster results from processing the superfine jpgs. I have been through this issue a number of times elsewhere.

One of my usual camera supports is the car door but I never turn the IS off as I can't be sure if there will be some very slight movement ... where does the IS margin of movement lie between handheld and a 'firm support'?

Do you think that IS could have contributed to the wavy effect above?

Had my wife shoot this with the E-520 just a few minutes ago (at as you can see, it was 0855!)

**Ross the fiddler** · 6 April 2011, 01:46 AM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Mark, look at my post (#13) in this thread. http://e-group.uk.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13837

With my test in the above thread, I would think that IS might've worked better without supporting it or to have turned off IS when such solid support was used & maybe next time it might be worth trying different options & hopefully one or the other will give a sharp image. I haven't made myself a bean bag yet, but I think that would be worthwhile for this giving you less movement.

I hope you can get some joy out of this lens without having to spend more money on it. That would just be a big p**p.

I must say, in that photo of you, that is just one look of concentration.

**Guest** · 6 April 2011, 04:23 AM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

Thanks there Ross. I read your thread, saw your samples, read through OPs comments and I strongly suspect that turning the IS OFF when using supports will solve my sharpness issues.

I have had the damn thing on ever since I bought it.

**Naughty Nigel** · 6 April 2011, 02:30 PM

Re: 50-200 - testing.

I have a Zuiko 50 ~ 200 (one of the early type) which I use on my E1, and have always been very impressed by the results. My son has also used it on his E500 with similarly impressive results.

The lack of sharpness in these shots looks more like camera shake than out of focus to me. I know the IS is supposed to prevent that, but I wonder whether it copes better with shorter lenses? Remember that if using this lens at the long end you should ideally be using 1/400 second or above.

However, I have occasionally seen a similar problem on my E1, but only when using the 14 ~ 54 Zuiko lens, which of course is the one I use most. I have never been able to work out what causes it. These are mainly landscape type shots, in which it looks as if the camera is slightly out of focus; but when I look closely it looks as if nothing in the view is focused properly, which cannot be right, can it? I also considered camera shake, but the exposures were all above 1/250 second, and have very steady hands. Moreover, several images are involved.

Heavy sharpening in Photoshop rescued the images that I needed, but I just felt that "something wasn't quite right".

Announcement

50-200 - testing.

50-200 - testing.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment