2 replies to this topic

[rsonedecker]

I struggled with a Tamron 70-200mm G2, so much so that it was away from me more than I was able to use it (internal focusing issues, poor performance between f/4 and f/11, etc.) so I sold it and forked over the $$$$ for the Nikkor -- So immediately after receiving it, I put it to use and test (spyderlenscal + focal software + real images).

 

AF seems to be lightning fast and accurate, but I immediately noted a lot of back-focus at 70mm and still decent back-focus at 200mm. The AF fine tune looks to be -10 on my D500 and -9 on my D750 (consistently at 11ft and 20ft both). And then after config, real use shows a noticeable sharpness difference in shots taken with AF fine tune on, and then off.

 

Also, on a side note, after taking a ton of actual images, I'm seeing that f/3.5-f/4 is the sharpest spot from 70-200, and f/2.8 is not quite as sharp as f/4 at 70-150, and then drops off pretty hard until being not nearly as sharp as f/4 at 200mm (almost matching f/16).

 

My immediate question is this - having spent $$$$(!), should the glass be that back-focused out of the box, or should I consider getting another copy?

[Nikon Shooter]

 

…should the glass be that back-focused out of the box, or should I consider getting another copy?

 

 

 

Lens are made with extremely narrow tolerance, and so are the
cameras. The sensor is positioned with equivalent tolerances.

 

What could then go wrong? Nothing extraordinary, really. There
is a third element coming in the equation: the AF system itself.

It is built to finely tune any modern lens with any body that has

the feature to "Fine Tune" lens and body so that the said low tole-
rances are unperceivable and the focus point at the desired spot.

 

I use 4 bodies and 16 lenses, and have to perform Fine Tune with

every lens or body acquisition.

[tomthetank]

Thanks for all the replies been busy. Looking at the 70 to 200 nikon.