AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR - It's not you, it's me

Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E

The  NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E

I received my Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E back on Monday,  05/09/2016. At the time I was dealing with some health issues and didn't get around to shooting much with it after it arrived.

I've read a number of accounts stating that this lens has production quality assurance issues, such as this article on Photography Life (https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6-vs-500mm-f4-at-block-creek-ranch). A lot of articles tell you to get out and test the IQ (Image Quality) and send it back if it isn't good. Again, and unfortunately, I didn't do that.

Now I'm questioning the lens. Or myself.

What I care about in the lens

I really want sharp pictures. As the common term goes, I want "tack sharp" pictures. I want to use this, or any lens, to see the utmost detail in what I'm shooting which ends up being reflected in the sharpness.

I don't really care about vignette issues because any of the post processing software I have takes care of that (Nikon Capture NX2, Adobe Elements or Lightroom, or manually in Adobe Photoshop). Same with distortions, or at least to the point that I don't notice it (but I'm not terribly critical when it comes to that since I think that distortions mainly show up with subjects with a lot of straight lines such as architectural photographs).

For me, shooting primarily landscapes, the bottom line is that I want to see details in trees when they're shot from afar. I want to see details in rocks, boulders, or mountains. If I shoot an animal I want to see my reflection in their eye. In that regard I'm similar to Todd Vorenkamp who wrote this article for B & H about testing a lens for sharpness (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/how-test-your-lens).

Treating her right

My Nikon D610 and Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod

I know that the lens isn't everything when it comes to capturing sharp images. For instance, Ken Rockwell has posted an article about issues affecting image sharpness that has a lot of things to think about (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/unsharp.htm). And here's an article by Thom Hogan that's still available (although I don't think he has a link to it on his current site): http://www.bythom.com/rightpixels.htm.

Basically there are a number of items that combined will factor in to whether you get a sharp image or not and I try to address them as best as I can. First, I almost always use a tripod. I don't care if a lens has vibration reduction or not, I don't trust my shaky hands. Second, I almost always use a wireless remote shutter release trigger. Third, I use a mirror lock up mode (which is one reason I wanted the better camera, in my case, the Nikon D610. The Nikon D3200 doesn't have mirror lock up).

But what happens when you do those things and you're still not convinced your getting great (sharp) images?

Is it soft?

Climbers on El Capitan
Nikon D610 + Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E lens

The photograph at left of the climbers on El Capitan was shot with the Nikkor 200-500mm lens at 480mm, f/11, 1/200s, ISO 100. It was shot at 2:20PM in pretty bright sunlight (there weren't any clouds there and this cliff face was being hit with the sun on 9/6/2016. There was some breeze but not much and especially not where I was sitting in the El Capitan meadow.

This image has a link to the full resolution image. Sharpening has been applied but I still think I should be able to see more detail. I'm just not sure.

I do know that if you believe in the reciprocal rule for shutter speeds, with a 500mm focal length the shutter speed should be at least as fast as 1/500 seconds. I have to be honest and admit I haven't actually thought of that while shooting and consequently I haven't adjusted the lens as necessary to get that faster shutter speed (either by increasing the ISO or using a larger f-stop such as f/8). Prior to taking the shot, I consciously thought of setting the f-stop to f/11 in order to have a larger depth of field which means more of the shot should be sharp. Of course, there's only one distance from the camera that is the sharpest; the depth of field is a range of sharpness deemed to be "acceptable." But, the range should include a good amount of sharpness at the target distance.

Depth of Field Calculations

I shot the image above from the El Capitan Meadow near a fallen log. I can see it on Google maps, which allows me to also measure the distance from the log to the face, which is roughly 1,800 feet. There are various claims as to the height of the face; I'll just arbitrarily use 3,000 feet. I also know that the climbers were roughly 1/2 of the way up the face which makes them about 1,500 feet above the level of the meadow. Using a bit of mathematics, that means that the distance from my camera to the climber is roughly 2,343 feet. I'll round it to 2,300 feet.

There are many online depth of field calculators, and I chose to use the one by Studio JPIC (http://www.studiojpic.com/calculators/depth-of-field-calculator). Choosing the Circle of Confusion of 0.029 for my Nikon D610, and using the values above, the DoF (Depth of Field) is calculated to be from 1,167 feet to 76,562 feet for a total of approximately 75,400 feet (I'm ignoring the decimal portion, it's not really significant at these distances). The climber should have been in focus. 

Changing the Aperture on the calculator to 8, the DoF is calculated to be from 1,348 feet to 7,807 feet, roughly 6,500 feet, which is quite a change but still, the climber should have been in focus. Just for fun, I changed the aperture to 5.6, resulting in a DoF calculated to be from 1,539 feet to 4,543 feet, roughly 3,000 feet. I could have easily just left it there.

According to Thom Hogan's review of the Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E (thankfully someone puts more effort into testing lenses than I do - I can just benefit from their work), the lens (his copy at least) gets slightly sharper at f/8 than f/5.6 but not much. In fact, he says that by f/11 the diffraction starts to be an issue and implies it should be avoided. I need to commit that to memory - that unless I'm trying to get a sunburst (which requires the small apertures such as f/22), I shouldn't use this lens above f/8. And for this distance the DoF would have been fine.

So if it's not the (calculated) depth of field issue, what's the problem?

Is it truly soft?

I can only look at my images - I don't have another copy of the lens to compare them to. I think I need to actually go out and do some testing. I'll have to try to do that. But just through writing this and thinking about things, I want to keep my aperture at f/8 or lower.

Reciprocal Rule

Bison at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon
Nikon D610 + Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E lens

And for wildlife, or any subject with movement such as trees swaying in the wind, I want to pay attention to the "reciprocal rule" which provides a guideline that for a lens at 500mm the shutter speed should at least be as fast as the reciprocal of that length, or 1/500 second. I don't think that would have made much difference with the rock face since it wasn't moving much but I can't be sure that the climber wouldn't have been sharper. He could have been swinging around.

In the bison photograph at right, I shot this at 500mm with f/11, 1/100 second, and ISO 100. If you open this image you'll see that the eyes are not terribly sharp. It's not bad but I think there's some motion blur. I think this should have been shot at f/8 and a shutter speed of at least 1/500s and if necessary the ISO should have been bumped up. It was an early morning shot, at 8:33 AM, but there was plenty of sunlight and no clouds in the sky. I don't know if I would have needed to increase the ISO or not. 

No decision

It looks like I've got some learning to do regarding this lens. Long lenses require different considerations; they reveal a lot more motion in the camera. I haven't figured out if the lens is an issue or my technique. Until I determine whether I can do everything under my control to get the best image quality and sharpness out of the lens I don't have a reason to send it back to Nikon. I'll keep working with the lens and describing my results.