High-Power Zoom lens

dsp921 · Oct 18, 2006

fmw said:
In theory there is some performance loss in a lens design that features VR. Truthfully, I've never owned or used a VR lens. But I thought I would post an image here that I made on Sunday. This was shot handheld with my 80-200 f2.8 zoom cranked all the way out to 200mm. It isn't an awe inspring image but I think you will agree that if there is any camera shake visible it is very minor. No VR. Just concentrate on holding it steady.

I do notice some minor bokeh differences with VR on vs. off. Other than that I see no performance loss. You do have to wait a beat for the VR to settle before taking the shot, though, otherwise it'll induce blur instead of remove it. Just a matter of learning to use the tool.
What was the shutter speed on the duck picture?
This is a shot from this summer, early evening in the shade, 70-200VR with a TC-17IIe at 340mm, not a wonderful image on any level, but the shutter speed was 1/13 second. Pretty sharp for hand held at that speed.

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

loves_guitar · Oct 19, 2006

Glimmerman said:
Love Guitar, when you say won't break the bank, its relative, some people's piggy banks are a lot larger than others.

For $189 canadian the Nikon G can't be too bad to learn on for now.
Bump up to $350ish for a Sigma and it can do macro too
Bump up to 670 and wait, you can get VR
above that is quite a jump, 1200+

Or look at used, although I cannot find many deals on AF Nikons they just dont sit around for long, and fetch high enough prices I would rather buy new

Are you willing to try a manual focus lense? You could look for Vivitar series 1 version 3 70-210's then, and other optically good manual lenses.

Well, with our first baby on the way, buying anything really expensive these days is a battle with the Mrs., but for arguments sake, let's say no more than $500.
And yes, I would be totally alright with manual focus. I'm pro-manual mode, so why not focus as well?!

fmw · Oct 19, 2006

dsp921 said:
I do notice some minor bokeh differences with VR on vs. off. Other than that I see no performance loss. You do have to wait a beat for the VR to settle before taking the shot, though, otherwise it'll induce blur instead of remove it. Just a matter of learning to use the tool.
What was the shutter speed on the duck picture?
This is a shot from this summer, early evening in the shade, 70-200VR with a TC-17IIe at 340mm, not a wonderful image on any level, but the shutter speed was 1/13 second. Pretty sharp for hand held at that speed.

I agree and I'm not fighting the technology as I said above. I shot the duck at 1/800 at f3.5 raising the ISO to 400 to allow the high shutter speed. I could not hand hold a sharp picture at 1/13 second. I understand that. If I had a VR lens, I would certainly use the feature.

The issue of lens design didn't deal with a difference between VR turned on or off. It dealt with a lens designed with it against a lens designed without it. That was years ago. I certainly agree that it is a great feature and I appreciate your posting the example.

fmw · Oct 19, 2006

boclcown said:
I understand that the more you pay, the better quality you get. But I won't be convinced that $800+ is really worth the extra 2 stops and slightly better optical quality.

Maybe if someone posted comparisons....(hint, hint)

The optical advantages of a better lens design are subtle enouth that you wouldn't likely see them in a 72 ppi JPEG unless you cropped and enlarged a corner of the photo. The lower contrast of the lesser lens could be fixed for the most part in post production. The 2 stops, however, would be huge to me. Monstrous. But not so important to you. Given that, I would say the $800 wouldn't be worth it either for you.

dsp921 · Oct 19, 2006

fmw said:
The issue of lens design didn't deal with a difference between VR turned on or off. It dealt with a lens designed with it against a lens designed without it.

I realized that's probably what you meant after I posted. I only posted that image to show what VR can do, not to argue in any way. The 70-200VR is widely accepted as a very sharp lens, one of Nikon's best, the VR takes nothing away from image quality. Would it be sharper without VR? I don't know, maybe, but I doubt it would make too much of a difference, it's a seriously sharp lens as is.

dsp921 · Oct 19, 2006

fmw said:
The 2 stops, however, would be huge to me. Monstrous. But not so important to you. Given that, I would say the $800 wouldn't be worth it either for you.

I'd agree with this. If you question the extra money, it probably isn't worth it to you. I wouldn't call the optical difference between the consumer and pro lenses slight however.

Glimmerman · Oct 19, 2006

If your cap is $500, then I would look at the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro for $320 canadian.

loves_guitar · Oct 19, 2006

Are manual focus lenses cheaper?

And reading around, that Sigma lens looks quite good.

Glimmerman · Oct 19, 2006

Yes, but there are not many on the market any more. It does open you up to a wide variety of older but optically high quality lenses. (you would have to research the individual lenses)