FYI: Nikon 180-600 Optical Anomaly

[NorthernFocus]

Many lenses(and particularly inexpensive ones) have "weak points" is certain conditions. For most people they never present a problem. For example the specular highlights issue with PF lenses. Only happens in specific situations and most people never see it in their photography. Well I seem to have found one of those situations with the 180-600. Nothing major but something to be aware of for anyone who shoots over water.

In the below example you can see lateral lines/bands in the BG. They show up worst just above the bird's head and in front of it but extend horizontally all the way across the middle of the frame. The BG was rippled water with low side lighting. The lines/banding only shows up in the OOF BG/bokeh. The image is cropped to about 20 percent of full frame. I shot a couple of hundred images that morning both before and after this was taken. Only this sequence under these particular conditions resulted in this anomaly.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Cameron T]

It just likes like oof water with a weird pattern to it to me.

 

[NorthernFocus]

It just likes like oof water with a weird pattern to it to me.

Surely you're looking at it on your phone? Very evident unnatural looking lines on my laptop.

 

[Butlerkid]

One of the reasons I have been leery of PF lenses. Just proves that there is no "free lunch" - just trade off's.

Thanks so much for sharing this. Wonder if @Steve has had this happen also?

 

[MikeJ]

Thanks for sharing this, Dan. I got my 180-600 too late last year to test from my kayak, or over any water. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for this.

 

[ajrmd]

Yes, I would very rarely see horizontal banding similar to, though not as discrete as that on my Canon 600 with 1.4x TC. The waves had to be a certain frequency, as did the lights, etc. to create the effect. I tried wading through 3000+ images in one folder but couldn't find one that sufficiently demonstrated the phenomenon. Perhaps this worth sending off to Nikon for comment?

 

[Nimi]

Many lenses(and particularly inexpensive ones) have "weak points" is certain conditions. For most people they never present a problem. For example the specular highlights issue with PF lenses. Only happens in specific situations and most people never see it in their photography. Well I seem to have found one of those situations with the 180-600. Nothing major but something to be aware of for anyone who shoots over water.

In the below example you can see lateral lines/bands in the BG. They show up worst just above the bird's head and in front of it but extend horizontally all the way across the middle of the frame. The BG was rippled water with low side lighting. The lines/banding only shows up in the OOF BG/bokeh. The image is cropped to about 20 percent of full frame. I shot a couple of hundred images that morning both before and after this was taken. Only this sequence under these particular conditions resulted in this anomaly.

View attachment 79505

Very noticeable on phone too when I enlarge it. Looks like motion blur effect in Photoshop but at that shutter speed you shouldn't have much even when you pan. Wondering whether that's lens or sensor or processing effect.

 

[NorthernFocus]

Very noticeable on phone too when I enlarge it. Looks like motion blur effect in Photoshop but at that shutter speed you shouldn't have much even when you pan. Wondering whether that's lens or sensor or processing effect.

Nothing to do with processing. It is something in the "optical system", i.e. lens/camera combination. If it was something noticeable in the field it would have been interesting to try different ss/apertures. Oh well...

 

[Nimi]

Nothing to do with processing. It is something in the "optical system", i.e. lens/camera combination. If it was something noticeable in the field it would have been interesting to try different ss/apertures. Oh well...

I meant in-camera processing. Even Lossless is processed. I think that's the same as what you call optical system, which will also include VR.

 

[bleirer]

Wondering if that could be moire? You have the repetitive structure of the ripples in the water? Yes, it is quite noticeable and certainly unnatural.

 

[Cameron T]

Surely you're looking at it on your phone? Very evident unnatural looking lines on my laptop.

Nope. I looked at it on my pc and phone both.

The lines are more present in the darker areas, which indicated to me it's just how the water presented in the oof areas there. You can see some "below" the bird as well, bit less apparent due to more light in them relative to the ones above and left with less light.

Id have to see more examples of this in other conditions to conclude its a consistent quirk of the optical design.

 

[Nimi]

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[NorthernFocus]

I meant in-camera processing. Even Lossless is processed. I think that's the same as what you call optical system, which will also include VR.

My thoughts are that it has to do with the electronic shutter scan rate and the frequency of the waves. The actual wave frequency would be consistent across the body of water but the apparent frequency falling on the sensor will vary with distance. That would explain why the pattern only shows up across a portion of the frame.

 

[Steve]

One of the reasons I have been leery of PF lenses. Just proves that there is no "free lunch" - just trade off's.

Thanks so much for sharing this. Wonder if @Steve has had this happen also?

I get some odd background form PF lenses from time to time, but it's rare enough that I don't really think about it

 

[PKW]

But the 180-600 isn’t a PF lens…

 

[NorthernFocus]

I get some odd background form PF lenses from time to time, but it's rare enough that I don't really think about it

Same as in this case. Interesting anomalies but not meaningful in the field.

Years ago I shot the Sigma 100-300 on a D300. It did something very similar to this when shooting over water but much worse. Got really bad with a 1.4x TC. It was problematic for shooting sea otters. This won't be a problem because nowadays I don't shoot them in rippled water

 

[Warren D]

How were the temperatures? I'm thinking it may have to do with atmospherics, in combination with wave frequency and other things. Where I am today, anything shot over water will have severe atmospherics as the water temps are still in the mid-30's F and air is 10F.

 

[Charles Loy]

Nice photo, especially since mostly backlighted.
Thanks for pointing out the concern. I'll examine my photos closely and see if I can pick up any of this. Curious to know if sky also render such

 

[zemlin]

Many lenses(and particularly inexpensive ones) have "weak points" is certain conditions. For most people they never present a problem. For example the specular highlights issue with PF lenses. Only happens in specific situations and most people never see it in their photography. Well I seem to have found one of those situations with the 180-600. Nothing major but something to be aware of for anyone who shoots over water.

In the below example you can see lateral lines/bands in the BG. They show up worst just above the bird's head and in front of it but extend horizontally all the way across the middle of the frame. The BG was rippled water with low side lighting. The lines/banding only shows up in the OOF BG/bokeh. The image is cropped to about 20 percent of full frame. I shot a couple of hundred images that morning both before and after this was taken. Only this sequence under these particular conditions resulted in this anomaly.

I'd call it OOF waves and leave it at that.

 

[NorthernFocus]

How were the temperatures? I'm thinking it may have to do with atmospherics, in combination with wave frequency and other things. Where I am today, anything shot over water will have severe atmospherics as the water temps are still in the mid-30's F and air is 10F.

The air temperature was likely 20F or so lower than the water. But it would be the oddest manifestation of "atmospherics" that I've ever seen. Aside from the straight lines atmospheric effect typically shows up more with greater distance. In this case there is the mid-range band across the frame. Plus I tend to reserve that explanation for when the only alternative is "human factors".

Nice photo, especially since mostly backlighted.
Thanks for pointing out the concern. I'll examine my photos closely and see if I can pick up any of this. Curious to know if sky also render such

I doubt it's an issue for 99 percent of situations. I should have plenty of opportunity to shoot across water in the next few weeks to see if it repeats. The pattern doesn't show up in the sky in the frames shot literally two minutes later in the osprey sequence taken from the same spot and at a similar angle to the sun.

 

[Charles Loy]

It is very visible in the wing.. top part of wing

 

[NorthernFocus]

It is very visible in the wing.. top part of wing

That's what I thought at first. But that's actually the effect of the back light shining through the feathers. Where the feathers overlap is darker than where there is a single layer.

 

[Oldnintheway]

I just had a quick look at recent whale encounters, obviously over water and shot with Z8/180-600, and found nothing similar. Might require just the right, or wrong, conditions.

 

[ingweDave]

One of the reasons I have been leery of PF lenses. Just proves that there is no "free lunch" - just trade off's.

Thanks so much for sharing this. Wonder if @Steve has had this happen also?

This isn’t a PF lens though?

 

[Butlerkid]

This isn’t a PF lens though?

True...but it is a known anomaly for PF lenses....