 |
| In this test, I evaluate the performance of AF and compare it to MF. I started with my wife's horse trailer as it has a good distance - about 800 feet or so and sharpness can be evaluated easily. I took 6 shots at f2.8 (3 AF and 3 MF) and the same at f4. At f5.6 I shot 4 shots - 2 AF and 2 MF. I used a Nikon magnifier as an aide for MF and shot with a sturdy tripod and ball head. The sequence I shot was the all AF for one aperture followed by all MF for the same aperture, and then on to the next aperture. I focused manually every MF case and re-focused using AF for every AF case. This lens does noticeably better at 2.8 and 4 than the wide angle primes. At 2.8 and 4, one of the three shots using AF was acceptable. At 5.6 AF looked better than MF. I also shot a series of a cruise ship at a distance of about 4+ miles and the AF did not do as well at 2.8 and 4 although still noticeably better than the wide angle primes. Lastly, a comparison of f2.8 and f8 with a shot of my car and a shot of a Papaya tree behind it. The distances were about 30 and 70 feet. I find it very hard to get f2.8 in focus - almost impossible with AF and very difficult with MF as the DOF is so small. When you do, the results are generally better than expected. You should be OK with AF when shooting above f4.0. At f4.0 or below, be safe and shoot multiple AF shots or shoot MF. A full-frame 900/600 72DPI f5.6/AF sample is below. |
|
mf f2.8 |
mf f2.8 |
mf f2.8 |
mf f4 |
mf f4 |
mf f4 |
mf f5.6 |
mf f5.6 |
 |
 |