Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR 1 vs Nikkor 70-200mm f4 for D7100

[Auslese]

go read his d7100 vs d810 thread, that will give you a better understanding of his thought process.

Or his other shutdown thread about getting an image in color and black & white ...

All In Flight there is the image produced by my thought process, all you are showing is words. DSC_0640b

 

[Derrel]

Auselese, your first link to an anti-VR diatribe was from a year 2000 dPreview post written by a newb named Andrew who did some birding at Bolsa Chica...and now you're referring us to a Ken Rockwell review of the 2001-releases 80-400 AF-D VR lens...not sure why though.

Your contention that "VR sucks" does not make much sense to me, because I've owned a number of Nikon VR lenses, and the system works amazingly well if it is used by somebody who has half a clue. VR is an absolutely amazing stabilizer for use in the wind, shooting one-handed, shooting when out of breath, shooting aboard a boat, shooting from a ferry, shooting from a moving platform, and when doing slow speed flash + ambient shots, and when doing slow-speed panning. VR works superbly. It just "does". I know.

Of course, when you trip off a few twilight shots of deer at f/5.6 at an incredibly slow shutter speed and your results are not good, you're making a conclusion that the lens and VR both suck, when in actuality, it's the photographer's technique and skill that deserve the credit for the poor results.

 

[astroNikon]

go read his d7100 vs d810 thread, that will give you a better understanding of his thought process.

Or his other shutdown thread about getting an image in color and black & white ...

All In Flight there is the image produced by my thought process, all you are showing is words. DSC_8880bbb DSC_0640b

what?
You got focus on the inside of the wheel thus the dog was slightly out of focus?

 

[Auslese]

Auselese, your first link to an anti-VR diatribe was from a year 2000 dPreview post written by a newb named Andrew who did some birding at Bolsa Chica...and now you're referring us to a Ken Rockwell review of the 2001-releases 80-400 AF-D VR lens...not sure why though.

Your contention that "VR sucks" does not make much sense to me, because I've owned a number of Nikon VR lenses, and the system works amazingly well if it is used by somebody who has half a clue. VR is an absolutely amazing stabilizer for use in the wind, shooting one-handed, shooting when out of breath, shooting aboard a boat, shooting from a ferry, shooting from a moving platform, and when doing slow speed flash + ambient shots, and when doing slow-speed panning. VR works superbly. It just "does". I know.

Of course, when you trip off a few twilight shots of deer at f/5.6 at an incredibly slow shutter speed and your results are not good, you're making a conclusion that the lens and VR both suck, when in actuality, it's the photographer's technique and skill that deserve the credit for the poor results.

Not at all VR works this way, you depress the shutter release button to activate the VR mechanism, this takes time, if the subject moves, you have two choices, 1 take a photo which may be out of focus, because the lens as locked on the initial location, or release and press the shutter release halfway again. Thus as stated the VR is not for sports or any kind of action photography. Which is why Nikon included an off switch for the VR mechanism. So the continuous autofocus tracking of the camera or other good lens is IMPOSSIBLE.

These are facts not opinion, that Nikon does not tell buyers, and for good reason.

 

[Derrel]

A good article explaining how VR works, and when and when NOT to use it. Nikon VR explained

 

[480sparky]

..... if the subject moves, you have two choices,.....

Please provide us with this heretofore unreleased information as to how VR lenses know when a subject has moved. Us uneducated simpletons would really benefit from your vast knowledge of the subject.

 

[gsgary]

You keep comparing the 80-200 to the 80-400 Vr. What about the 70-200 2.8 Vr? I have never had my VR limit my abilities on fast moving subjects?

You are correct, certainly the 2.8vr is better than the 4vr, that said I will never buy another VR of any type again. all the VR lenses have off switches for the mechanism, why? Because it is of no help in many conditions. The 80-200,2.8D was out of production and was brought back because it is just better than the 70-200,2.8VR, it is just that simple. I posted photos of what VR produces, and it is no advantage, not to me anyway.

Here we go again more ****

Ahem!

 

[astroNikon]

You keep comparing the 80-200 to the 80-400 Vr. What about the 70-200 2.8 Vr? I have never had my VR limit my abilities on fast moving subjects?

You are correct, certainly the 2.8vr is better than the 4vr, that said I will never buy another VR of any type again. all the VR lenses have off switches for the mechanism, why? Because it is of no help in many conditions. The 80-200,2.8D was out of production and was brought back because it is just better than the 70-200,2.8VR, it is just that simple. I posted photos of what VR produces, and it is no advantage, not to me anyway.

Here we ****ing go again more bullshit

Yup .... instead of locking the threads ... lock the poster ...

 

[gsgary]

You keep comparing the 80-200 to the 80-400 Vr. What about the 70-200 2.8 Vr? I have never had my VR limit my abilities on fast moving subjects?

You are correct, certainly the 2.8vr is better than the 4vr, that said I will never buy another VR of any type again. all the VR lenses have off switches for the mechanism, why? Because it is of no help in many conditions. The 80-200,2.8D was out of production and was brought back because it is just better than the 70-200,2.8VR, it is just that simple. I posted photos of what VR produces, and it is no advantage, not to me anyway.

Here we ****ing go again more bullshit

Yup .... instead of locking the threads ... lock the poster ...

He has proved from his linked photos he doesn't know how to focus so blames the lens

 

[Auslese]

A good article explaining how VR works, and when and when NOT to use it. Nikon VR explained

No need to read the article, because I have two of these lenses, and if your subjects are moving, do not even bring one of these lenses, because continuous autofocus is impossible.

 

[Braineack]

Both pictures are poor and I would not consider them worthy of being shown.

consdiering you couldn't even get it to focus...

I did this to prove to myself what lens to use, and now I know that VR does not produce the better image.

user error. VR is not a marketing ploy. You have to know how to use it, when to use it, and when not to use it.

True the 80-200 is a 2.8 lens, but the 400 should optically be closer

the 400 is a super-zoom and score poor optically.

and the VR should have compensated for shake creating a clearer image.

the problem with the image isnt shake. and had you been resting the lens on a solid surface, then the VR should have been turned off (read the manual).

Here is an excellent action shot with my 80-200, 2.8 D that I never would have, or would not be as sharp with VR, because VR is not recommended for action, why, because once the VR locks on target, it has to reacquire and relock to take an in focus photo, and if the subject is in fast motion, you get nothing.

VR has nothing to do with acquiring focus. It's almost like you don't know what you're talking about...

All In Flight

the IQ in this image is very low. Look like it's been cropped quite heavily? there's little to no detail on the dog.

Which is why you can turn off the VR in the first place, which for me means that It is useless, unless the animal poses, which does happen occasionally, but then you still need tripod.....

not being able to aquire focus is not why you need to be able to turn off VR.

Here is what Rockwell says about VR lenses for sports

"This lens is optimized for handheld photos of still subjects, NOT sports! I do shoot some sports with my D1H camera, but would caution you to check to see that the AF is fast enough to track action for you depending on what you are shooting, especially with anything other than a D1 series or F5.

Rockwell is a borderline hack who halfheartly updates he 1995 webapge to make money off people like you. The review was written in something like 2000, he's still referecing the 2MP D1H camera and film cameras.

Nikon salesmen brush this off as "well, its not AF-S," but as you see above plenty of mechanically autofocused lenses are very fast. In this case this lens is just geared very slowly.

What does this lens being horrible at AF speed have to do with VR?

The slow AF is OK because the VR lens is not for shooting sports or action anyway.

that's awful, 2nd-grader, stretch of logic. How about: The slow AF is OK because this lens is not for shooting sports or action anyway. There's no correlation between the AF speed and VR.

Don't be misled by the illustrations in the sales literature. The point of the VR feature is to be able to shoot still subjects with long exposures without needing a tripod. It is not to be used for shooting things that move quickly requiring fast shutter speeds. For sports you ought to be using a faster lens allowing faster shutter speeds, or if you don't have an f/2.8 super telephoto, faster film." Nikon 80-400mm VR Review

how much of that is yours and how much of this is Ken's? blind leading blind here.

 

[Auslese]

You keep comparing the 80-200 to the 80-400 Vr. What about the 70-200 2.8 Vr? I have never had my VR limit my abilities on fast moving subjects?

You are correct, certainly the 2.8vr is better than the 4vr, that said I will never buy another VR of any type again. all the VR lenses have off switches for the mechanism, why? Because it is of no help in many conditions. The 80-200,2.8D was out of production and was brought back because it is just better than the 70-200,2.8VR, it is just that simple. I posted photos of what VR produces, and it is no advantage, not to me anyway.

Here we ****ing go again more bullshit

Yup .... instead of locking the threads ... lock the poster ...

He has proved from his linked photos he doesn't know how to focus so blames the lens

The camera and lens are supposed to do the focusing, but my focus is fine, as long as no VR is used on action. Most Viewed Try and get this with a VR lock..... 13857794494_a2450a2b92_o The photographer has to make decisions that no fuzzy logic software can.....

 

[Braineack]

No need to read the article, because I have two of these lenses, and if your subjects are moving, do not even bring one of these lenses, because continuous autofocus is impossible.

I cant type a reply to this because the sky is blue.

 

[gsgary]

You keep comparing the 80-200 to the 80-400 Vr. What about the 70-200 2.8 Vr? I have never had my VR limit my abilities on fast moving subjects?

You are correct, certainly the 2.8vr is better than the 4vr, that said I will never buy another VR of any type again. all the VR lenses have off switches for the mechanism, why? Because it is of no help in many conditions. The 80-200,2.8D was out of production and was brought back because it is just better than the 70-200,2.8VR, it is just that simple. I posted photos of what VR produces, and it is no advantage, not to me anyway.

Here we ****ing go again more bullshit

Yup .... instead of locking the threads ... lock the poster ...

He has proved from his linked photos he doesn't know how to focus so blames the lens

The camera and lens are supposed to do the focusing, but my focus is fine, as long as no VR is used on action. Most Viewed Try and get this with a VR lock..... 13857794494_a2450a2b92_o The photographer has to make decisions that no fuzzy logic software can.....

I thought you had the best camera going my friends have no trouble with the 80-400 on a D90 and D4

 

[Braineack]

The camera and lens are supposed to do the focusing, but my focus is fine, as long as no VR is used on action. Most Viewed

you missed the focus on a high number of those images... is this with your 80-200? I wouldn't be touting it so much looking at the IQ it produces on your sensor. The shots on the boat using a different lens look measurably better.