>>Not trying to be argumentative - just want to be clear on >the >>facts. > >Well in that case, I assumed your OP was supposed to be the >18-55 for I only know of one 17-55 and that is the f/2.8 >Nikkor which I would hardly call cheap or define as a kit >lens. > Sorry, I sometimes type (and speak) wrong numbers. Like when I told my wife on her 40th birthday that I was going to trade her in for a pair of 20 year olds. Definitely misspoke there.
The 18-55 is indeed a cheap kit lens. Sorry for the confusion.
>But still, the 18-55 that's listed in your profile slower >variable aperture and seems to be working fine at wide angle, >and the newer faster lenses would by design have a narrower >DOF when shooting wide open aren't; perhaps there is a slight >variation there. But again I know you are diligent in your >testing and I'm sure you took that into account. >
Yes, not even close. I have a nice contrasty target, and even using AF-S with a Speedlight assist, getting focus locked, and then checking in Capture NX to make sure that focus was at that point - not even close. Shot about 50 "real world" shots, both with flash and without, and not one even close to being in focus. I even thought about the DOF, and did some shooting at f11, and focus was the same abysmal miss.
At this stage of the ballgame, I pretty much always assume operator error is the issue, mainly because I know the operator.
I just started testing, shot 3 shots with af-tune -20, 0, +20. -20 is clearly approaching (if not in) focus.
That's as far as I've taken it. I'm sure I could do some real world shooting and get at least acceptable results at -20, but I want to test some more.
>But again I don't feel this has anything to do with DX versus >FX designs, and is more due to calibration tolerances and luck >of the draw. > >Pete >
Fair enough; I tend to agree, and I do appreciate your thoughts on this.