VR Arrived. What should I expect.

[fmw]

I only had about 5 minutes to test the 70-20 f2.8 VR zoom. I think it is working OK. When I depress the shutter release I get the usual focusing motor which stops and and I get a rather quiet additional motor that keeps going until the shutter fires. I was expecting the viewfinder to get wiggly but it doesn't.

The first shots below are made beyond the capability of the VR system. 200mm focal length, f2.8 1/8 sec. The first one is without and the second one with VR enabled. Below that is a shot that is within the VR capabilities - 200mm, f22 1/60 sec. It looks like it is sharper than I would be able to handhold normally. Am I getting what I should expect?

 

[Big Mike]

I can only see RED Xs.

 

[fmw]

I can only see RED Xs.

My fault. I mistyped the URL's. Sorry.

 

[Patrice]

I've just had mine for a couple of weeks but it does make the same sounds you describe. I would have been surprised to see blurry viewfinder - the 'VR' is supposed to stabilize the image.

The lens has helped my images - I have fine motor tremors (nervous system condition) and the non-stabilized 80-200 2.8 was getting hard to use effectively.

 

[Big Mike]

200mm at 1/60...that shot looks pretty darn sharp to me. I'd say you are getting what you paid for.

I don't have any IS lenses yet...but I've played around a bit in the store. What I noticed was that when I activated IS & AF with a half press...the IS would take a quick moment and then 'zone in'...which would stabilize the image in the view finder. It wasn't really a wiggle...but definitely a noticeable steadiness of the camera shake.

 

[dsp921]

That looks about right. I see the subject in the viewfinder lock into place, well, it stops shaking so much anyway. You need to give the VR a little time to "settle" otherwise you'll get more blur. It's probaby a second or less. The VR does take a little getting used to but it seems like you're on to it.

This is a crap image, but it was shot with the 70-200 with a 1.7TC, so 340mm at 1/13 sec. For me I couldn't come close without the VR. Obviously not very sharp, but I'll take it for 1/13th.

Camera Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D70s
Image Date: 2006:07:03 16:47:42
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 340.0mm (35mm equivalent: 510mm)
Exposure Time: 0.077 s (1/13)
Aperture: f/5.6
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Center Weight
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
Comment: (c)2006 DSP

 

[fmw]

I'll take it for a spin this weekend when I'll have more time to work with it. It is rather nice to buy a new lens with a barrel made of metal instead of plastic. The lens looks and feels just like the old ED IF telephotos from the film days. Except mine is a light gray color instead of black. Nice lens. I look forward to spending some time with it.

I think the bird shot is amazing for such a slow shutter speed. Even at 1/8 second I got a shot that, while not sharp, was certainly better than the same thing without the VR enabled. I assume you rested the lens on something to make that exposure.

 

[dsp921]

I'll take it for a spin this weekend when I'll have more time to work with it. It is rather nice to buy a new lens with a barrel made of metal instead of plastic. The lens looks and feels just like the old ED IF telephotos from the film days. Except mine is a light gray color instead of black. Nice lens. I look forward to spending some time with it.

I think the bird shot is amazing for such a slow shutter speed. Even at 1/8 second I got a shot that, while not sharp, was certainly better than the same thing without the VR enabled. I assume you rested the lens on something to make that exposure.

I think your really going to like this lens once you get a chance to play around a bit.

Believe it or not, that shot was hand-held. I think I got lucky, I haven't tried a similar shot since, I don't want to spoil it for myself....

 

[Tiberius]

Do recall that the technique for shooting with a long, heavier telephoto is substantially different from that for shooting with a light mid-range lens. You'll get more used to it with time. But your results don't look bad at all.

 

[fmw]

Do recall that the technique for shooting with a long, heavier telephoto is substantially different from that for shooting with a light mid-range lens. You'll get more used to it with time. But your results don't look bad at all.

I guess I don't understand the comment. Are you saying that VR works differently with longer lenses than it does with shorter ones? Are you viewing this as a long or short one?

In my experience even a heavy tripod often isn't enough to keep a 500 or 600mm telephoto sharp. It sometimes takes mirror lock up, sand bags, remote shutter release and something to block the wind to keep it sharp. I used to avoid using long lenses if I could just to avoid all of this. I assume VR would resolve much of these issues on long lenses.

If I can hand hold 200mm at 1/60 for a sharp image, that's pretty impressive to me. It should be able to handle a 600mm lens on a tripod on a windy day, I would think.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

If I had the money, I would have bought the 70-200, but I didn't and I still don't. I'm still happy with the next best thing thoguh.

 

[fmw]

I spent a few more minutes today testing the lens around the house. There is no question it is working and working well. I made a handheld shot at 200mm at 1/40 second and it is as sharp as a tack. It would be plainly impossible to do that without VR or a tripod.

However, I get no indication at all in the viewfinder that VR is working. None. I only hear a quiet hum from the little motor. It sounds like people are saying that the image should freeze in the viewfinder. It doesn't. If I switch the mode from normal to active and a move the camera, the viewfinder seems to lag a little behind the movement. In the normal mode, you wouldn't have a clue by looking in the viewfinder that the VR is working at all. There is no difference in the viewfinder at all between VR on or off. But it sure does work.

I wonder if VR has changed in some way. My experience doesn't sound like that of others that use the technology.

 

[fmw]

If I had the money, I would have bought the 70-200, but I didn't and I still don't. I'm still happy with the next best thing thoguh.

I've had many knowledgeable photographers tell me that the AF 80-200 f2.8 ED is one of the best telephoto zooms every designed. I had one and I wouldn't disagree with them. That lens behaved just like one of the fixed focal length ED telephotos. I've had the 300 f2.8 and the 500 f4. They were slightly contrastier than the zoom and slightly better wide open but very close. We're talking about multi thousand dollar lenses and the 80-200 was around $1000 if I remember correctly. Great lens. No question about it.