 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Two new Nikon lenses
18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor: Type of lens: G-Type AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor lens with built-in CPU and Nikon bayonet mount (Designed exclusively for use with Nikon DX format digital SLR cameras) Focal length: Approximates the picture angle performance of a 28-200mm lens on 35mm SLR Maximum aperture: f/3.5 Â- f/5.6 Lens construction : 15 elements in 13 groups (with one ED glass element and two aspherical lens elements) Picture angle: 76 degrees - 12 degrees Focal length scale: 18, 24, 35, 50, 70, 105, 135 mm Distance information : Output to camera body Zoom control: Manually via zoom ring Focusing: Nikon Internal Focusing (IF) system utilizing an internal Silent Wave Motor; manually via focusing ring Closest focus distance: 1.5 feet (0.45m) at all zoom settings No. of diaphragm blades: 7 (rounded) Diaphragm: Fully automatic Aperture range: f/3.5 to f/22 (at 18mm) f/5.6 to f/38 (at 135mm) Exposure measurement : Via full-aperture method Filter/attachment size: 67mm Focus method: Compact SWM (Silent Wave Motor) Dimensions: (approx.) 2.9 in. x 3.4 in. (80 x 143.5mm) Weight: (approx.) 13.6 oz (745g) Included accessories: LC-67 67mm snap-on front lens cap, LF-1 rear lens cap, HB-32 bayonet hood, CL-0915 flexible lens pouch 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor: Type of lens : G-Type AF-S Zoom-Nikkor lens with built - in CPU and Nikon bayonet mount Focal length: 70-300mm (Approximates the picture angle performance of a 105-450mm 35mm SLR) Maximum aperture: f/4.5-5.6 Lens construction: 17 elements in 12 groups (with 2 ED glass elements) Picture angle : 34 degrees 20 feet- 8 degrees 10 feet (22 degrees 50 feet Â- 5 degrees 20 feet with Nikon DX format digital SLR cameras) Focal length: scale 70, 100, 135, 200, 300mm Distance information: Output to camera body Zoom control: Manually via zoom ring Focusing: Nikon Internal Focusing (IF) system utilizing an internal Silent Wave Motor; manually via focusing ring Vibration reduction: Lens-shift method using voice coil motors (VCMs) Closest focus distance: 4.9 feet (1.5m) at all zoom settings No. of diaphragm blades: 9 (rounded) Diaphragm: Fully automatic Aperture range: f/4.5 to f/32 (at 70mm), f/5.6 to f/40 (at 300mm) Exposure measurement : Via full-aperture method Filter/attachment size: 67mm Focus method: Ring SWM Dimensions: (approx.) 3.1 x 5.6 in. (80 x 143.5mm) Weight: (approx.) 26.3 oz (745g) Included accessories: LC-67 67mm snap-on front lens cap, LF-1 rear lens cap, HB-36 bayonet hood, CL-1022 flexible lens pouch >18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor: Hehehe...I see you posted about the D80 just a few minutes before me. You must have been clicking around on the site too. :-) > Focus method: Compact SWM (Silent Wave Motor) Too bad it's not a ring motor. That puts a damper on things. >70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Lens construction: 17 elements in 12 groups (with 2 ED glass >elements) It'll be nice to see how they perform. >>18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Too bad it's not a ring motor. Please provide your reference showing the SWM used in the AF-S lenses has changed design. Are you sure you're not confusing the types of focusing motors used in the Canon lenses (one is "ring" and one is not, as I understand it) and the SWM motors used by Nikon (I don't believe they have changed design). Bob >>> Focus method: Compact SWM (Silent Wave Motor) >> >> Too bad it's not a ring motor. >> >Please provide your reference showing the SWM used in the AF-S lenses has >changed design. Nothing has changed in over a year, at least April 2005. Nikon has two AF-S motors. One is a ring SWM which is the good one used in quality AF-S lenses, and the other is the compact SWM or direct drive motor that they've used in cheap AF-S lenses like the 18-55 kit for the D50, the 55-200, (and this new 18-135). The compact SWM usually works with regular focus, whereas the ring SWM usually has internal focusing where the front element does not rotate. The direct drive motor does not allow simultaneous auto/manual focus and lacks the "M/A -- M" switch. Note that this new 18-135 has IF, so it's more like a hybrid. > 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor: > > Type of lens: G-Type AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor lens with built-in CPU and > Nikon bayonet mount (Designed exclusively for use with Nikon DX format > digital SLR cameras) Nikon needs to introduce the 17-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor to replace the 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens. If this lens were any good I might consider having it replace my 17-35 and 28-70. We don't need anymore stinken DX lenses! Rita > 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor: > 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor: I'm really tired of these ultra-slow, completely uninteresting zooms Nikon keeps putting out. Who cares? Don't we have way more than enough of this kind of crap already? I really want them to give us some more nice, interesting high-end glass. Not that Canon is any better, but at least with Nikon you have the old, far more interesting lenses available to you.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not that Canon is any better, but at least with Nikon you have the old, > far more interesting lenses available to you. The 18-135 looks uninteresting - lacking VR and ring SWM (USM) drive, it's place is perhaps for those who can't afford an 18-200, want more range than the normal 18 - ??, and don't want to change lenses. The 70-300 however fills a gaping hole in Nikon's lens lineup. Fast glass is expensive and heavy. They have cheap slow lightweight glass in the 55-200 (which apparently performs very well for what it is). But Nikon haven't had anything fast focusing and lightweight in that range since the 70-210 f4-5.6 D was discontinued. Ring USM and VR will be a huge improvement over the current 70-300 G and ED lenses. I expect that optical quality will have to be much better as well. It will sell like hotcakes. > The 70-300 however fills a gaping hole in Nikon's lens lineup. Fast > glass is expensive and heavy. Well, sure, but if I were to get into "lenses I think they should make even though I wouldn't be buying one", a 70-200 f/4 would be the thing in this range, not some f/5.6 nonsense. But I'd rather see a 35mm f/1.8 DX at the right "normal lens" price point, which I still wouldn't buy but which I think they need. > It will sell like hotcakes. Unfortunately, you're probably right. I still dream of my 50mm f/1.2 ED N VR2, though. And a 35/1.4 ED N VR2. And, more down to earth, *anything* wide angle that's f/2 or faster; you can only get that with the horrendously expensive 28/1.4 (discontinued, too) or with manual focus (thankfully), but an AF version of the 24mm f/2 would be welcome and they wouldn't even have to start from scratch since the lens already exists. I've got all the slow lenses I need, except that I'd like that 200-400 for wildlife. I want some nice, f/2 or faster, truly interesting glass. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I still dream of my 50mm f/1.2 ED N VR2, though. And a 35/1.4 ED N > VR2. And, more down to earth, *anything* wide angle that's f/2 or > faster; you can only get that with the horrendously expensive 28/1.4 > (discontinued, too) or with manual focus (thankfully), but an AF > version of the 24mm f/2 would be welcome and they wouldn't even have > to start from scratch since the lens already exists. The 50mm f/1.2 might be interesting, but VR on these lenses, especially the wide angle ones is probably worthless at these focal lengths. I would skip the VR and not worry about it. A mint condition used 28mm f/1.4 can easily be had on eBay for under $1,500. Rita > The 50mm f/1.2 might be interesting, but VR on these lenses, especially the > wide angle ones is probably worthless at these focal lengths. VR would be *far* from worthless with those focal lengths. I use 50mm and 35mm quite a lot in situations where it would be very nearly *priceless*. I'd camp out in front of B&H overnight to get those lenses! :) > A mint condition used 28mm f/1.4 can easily be had on eBay for under $1,500. I've been seeing them go for quite a lot more than that. They're getting to be just as bad as the 58/1.2. It's strange that, with the enormous demand for fast lenses in the secondary market, Nikon apparently doesn't see enough market to make new ones. I mean, I bought my 50mm f/1.2 for less than $150 and now it seems to be worth about twice that. Crazy stuff. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > It's strange that, with the enormous demand for fast lenses in the secondary > market, Nikon apparently doesn't see enough market to make new ones. I mean, > I bought my 50mm f/1.2 for less than $150 and now it seems to be worth about > twice that. Crazy stuff. Jeremy, How's the 50mm lens at f/1.2? I'm thinking of getting one but don't know anybody who has it to test it. > How's the 50mm lens at f/1.2? I'm thinking of getting one but don't know > anybody who has it to test it. It's a great lens. Excellent image quality and amazing "feel". It is, however, extremely prone to veiling flare -- a nice long hood is an absolute requirement. Without it the pictures lose enough contrast to look very soft, especially wide open. Even with the hood, at f/1.2 it does start to lose contrast and look a little soft, but it's more than usable there with a hood. For low-light I usually keep it at f/1.4, with 1.2 there just in case I need it. But I do have a number of shots with it at f/1.2 that don't suffer for it. With a Katz Eye split-image focusing screen in the camera, it's very easy to focus quickly. For low-light street shooting, focusing is definitely more reliable than using an autofocus 50/1.4, which I also have, and which I honestly haven't touched in a long time because I vastly prefer the 1.2. I do also have an AI-S 50/1.8 (early model) which I use instead of the 1.2 when light isn't scarce. Due to the flare issue I wouldn't want the 1.2 to be my only 50mm. If they could make a 50/1.2 without the flare, perhaps with ED glass and nanocoating as I suggested earlier, it would be amazing, and I'd even be willing to live with autofocus and lack of an aperture ring. Both of these lenses are better than the autofocus 50mm models, as long as you keep the flare under control and *always* use a long hood on the 1.2. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > It's a great lens. Excellent image quality and amazing "feel". It is, > however, extremely prone to veiling flare -- a nice long hood is an > absolute requirement. Without it the pictures lose enough contrast to > look very soft, especially wide open. Thanks for the info >> The 50mm f/1.2 might be interesting, but VR on these lenses, >> especially the wide angle ones is probably worthless at these focal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > *priceless*. I'd camp out in front of B&H overnight to get those > lenses! :) In theory it sounds great and I agree with you that it would be priceless if it really added that extra edge. I'm sure that there are some lens experts out here that could answer this better than I can. I'm not convinced it would help that much >> A mint condition used 28mm f/1.4 can easily be had on eBay for under >> $1,500. > > I've been seeing them go for quite a lot more than that. They're > getting to be just as bad as the 58/1.2. Just keep a watchful eye and you'll be amazed at some of the bargains that come along. > It's strange that, with the enormous demand for fast lenses in the > secondary market, Nikon apparently doesn't see enough market to make > new ones. I mean, I bought my 50mm f/1.2 for less than $150 and now > it seems to be worth about twice that. Crazy stuff. A great classic lens is a great classic lens and there probably isn't that much more that can be done to improve it. Nikon is starting to cater to the basic consumer by offering these consumer grade lenses. I guess they feel this is where they will make most of their money? This is why it's good to hold onto a good lens when you get one. Rita > A great classic lens is a great classic lens and there probably isn't that > much more that can be done to improve it. Nikon is starting to cater to the > basic consumer by offering these consumer grade lenses. I guess they feel > this is where they will make most of their money? Naturally that would be why, and they're probably quite right, too. I mean, they've done the market research, and I haven't. It's just that, back in the day, they made good lenses just because they were good, not merely as a reaction to market research. Market research would never have produced the 58/1.2, or many of the other classics. I just think there is room for both "schools" of lens creation, is all. The specialty exotics may not make as much money, but they're great for PR value and brand image. > This is why it's good to hold onto a good lens when you get one. It's also one of the *really* big reasons to use Nikon rather than, say, Canon, where you're stuck with only the "new" lenses they decide to make. No, thanks. Pentax has the right idea, too. Backwards compatibility. If you're only going to make silly crap now, at least let people use the better, older stuff. If Nikon ceased to exist tomorrow I still wouldn't touch Canon with a ten-foot pole. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > It's also one of the *really* big reasons to use Nikon rather than, > say, Canon, where you're stuck with only the "new" lenses they decide > to make. No, thanks. Pentax has the right idea, too. Backwards > compatibility. If you're only going to make silly crap now, at least > let people use the better, older stuff. If Nikon ceased to exist > tomorrow I still wouldn't touch Canon with a ten-foot pole. The only gripe I have about Canon is they got me on the FD lenses. I had a large selection and when, like you say, designed a new system all my lenses became obsolete. I won't make the same mistake twice. I'm now 100% Nikkor. Rita . > The only gripe I have about Canon is they got me on the FD lenses. I had > a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rita So, in other words, instead of buying all new Canon gear, you bought all new Nikon gear. Makes sense to me... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > So, in other words, instead of buying all new Canon gear, you bought > all new Nikon gear. Makes sense to me... It sure does when you have both Canon and Nikon gear and I can still use my AI lenses today. Try mounting an FD lens on an EOS system. The choice was simple, stay with Nikon. Rita >> So, in other words, instead of buying all new Canon gear, you bought >> all new Nikon gear. Makes sense to me... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rita Well, having Nikon gear does make a difference. We had FD mount Canon gear, looked at all the other brands when we switched to AF, landed with Canon, anyway. We're not vindictive, like some guys are. The ones who won't use Canon stuff, because of the mount change. Hey, kids, Minolta did the same thing, and Oly quit the SLR market entirely, until they went digital. I'm just tired of hearing how "Canon screwed their customers over" nearly 20 years ago with a necessary lens mount change. OTOH, try fitting a Nikkor lens on a full frame body... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> So, in other words, instead of buying all new Canon gear, you bought >>> all new Nikon gear. Makes sense to me... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > necessary lens mount change. OTOH, try fitting a Nikkor lens on a > full frame body... Yep, and I sold all my FD lenses and stayed with Nikon. It's not about being vindictive; it's about using the equipment that best fills my needs. As I have always said in this group, "I like Canon and Nikon equally well and buying into either system can come down to a toss of a coin." If I were just starting out I would have a hell of a time making the choice since there were/are only two choices in the SLR market, Nikon and Canon. I'm sure it's not a feeling of "Canon screwed their customers over" but more a feeling of practicality. Logically, most people feel it would totally suck to buy into a system were they have upwards of $10K in lenses and have the manufacturer on a whim introduce a great body that no longer accepts the "old style" glass. So far, Nikon's track record makes it a logical choice to buy pro glass. I have no problem with buying bodies every year, but I expect to get a lifetime of use out of all my lenses. All my Nikkors will fit and work on a FF body when Nikon gets off their dead a.s and introduces the new D3x. For today's offerings, I can take my Nikkors with an adapter and have them work with limited functionality on Canon's FF bodies. It still amazes me how many Canon owners want Nikon Glass and still shoot with it on their 5Ds an Mark IIs. Rita > The 50mm f/1.2 might be interesting, but VR on these lenses, especially the > wide angle ones is probably worthless at these focal lengths. I would skip > the VR and not worry about it. A mint condition used 28mm f/1.4 can easily > be had on eBay for under $1,500. A 50mm f/1.2 with VR would be priceless for street night photography. Even a 50mm f/1.8 with VR would be great, as it would be a lot cheaper than anything equivalent in terms of low-light ability. But I don't think there's too many street night photographers, so... > A 50mm f/1.2 with VR would be priceless for street night photography. > Even a 50mm f/1.8 with VR would be great, as it would be a lot cheaper > than anything equivalent in terms of low-light ability. But I don't > think there's too many street night photographers, so... Me! Me! :) A 50, a 35, a thing of pepper spray, and sensible shoes. Well, and sometimes a 105 if I'm in the mood. And now I'm wanting that 24/2. The Zeiss 85/1.4 is pretty attractive, too. "I wish to have no connection with any lens that does not shoot fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." (Apologies to John Paul Jones...) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> The 50mm f/1.2 might be interesting, but VR on these lenses, >> especially the wide angle ones is probably worthless at these focal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > than anything equivalent in terms of low-light ability. But I don't > think there's too many street night photographers, so... My feeling on VR and short focal length lenses is it really wouldn't be that effective and beneficial. On longer length lenses it can come in handy. I have a 70-200mm VR and I very rarely even use the VR. I shoot low light and night with my 50mm f/1.4 and really never considered VR as being helpful with it. I guess I'm so used to using bracing techniques and other methods to keep the camera relatively stable. Rita > My feeling on VR and short focal length lenses is it really wouldn't be that > effective and beneficial. On longer length lenses it can come in handy. I > have a 70-200mm VR and I very rarely even use the VR. I shoot low light and > night with my 50mm f/1.4 and really never considered VR as being helpful > with it. I guess I'm so used to using bracing techniques and other methods > to keep the camera relatively stable. When the best you can do is 1/10 at f/1.2 with the ISO cranked all the way up, and you've got about two seconds to get the shot... it would help quite a lot. It would also help even when you can hand-hold with little trouble; at 1/30, say, you can get the shot, but it's still not as sharp as it could be, and VR would still help a bit. I've done okay at 1/10 by doing three or four shots rapid-fire; the first one is almost always the sharpest, but sometimes not. The problem there is if your first shot captured the moment you wanted, but the second one is the sharp one. Even at 1/125, it makes a difference whether you use a tripod. VR would be helpful in nearly all hand-held situations, at all focal lengths. And it doesn't *hurt* anything (except the price tag, I suppose). For street shooting it would be a gift from the gods. If they made that 50/1.2 I described, they could have this week's paycheck. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> My feeling on VR and short focal length lenses is it really wouldn't >> be that effective and beneficial. On longer length lenses it can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > but it's still not as sharp as it could be, and VR would still help a > bit. Possibly. > I've done okay at 1/10 by doing three or four shots rapid-fire; the > first one is almost always the sharpest, but sometimes not. The > problem there is if your first shot captured the moment you wanted, > but the second one is the sharp one. Shoot at 400mm under the same conditions and speed with VR and you will be highly disappointed. My point is focal length has a major effect on whether or not VR will even work. I'm speculating that VR won't be useful or practical at 50mm and below. > Even at 1/125, it makes a difference whether you use a tripod. VR > would be helpful in nearly all hand-held situations, at all focal > lengths. And it doesn't *hurt* anything (except the price tag, I > suppose). For street shooting it would be a gift from the gods. If > they made that 50/1.2 I described, they could have this week's > paycheck. For my shooting style, I've got to the point of using technique, beanbag, tripod, or whatever else I can find in my surroundings to keep the camera steady. The biggest misconception people have with VR is they think it's a cure-all for everything till they actually use it on a regular basis. Rita > Shoot at 400mm under the same conditions and speed with VR and you will be > highly disappointed. I don't have anything 400mm, but it works excellently on the 70-200, even at 70mm. > My point is focal length has a major effect on whether or not VR will > even work. I'm speculating that VR won't be useful or practical at 50mm > and below. I can't imagine why it wouldn't. Canon certainly thinks it will. And anyone who has one of the 18-200s can try it, too. The 70-200 at 70mm is a fairly compelling example. > For my shooting style, I've got to the point of using technique, beanbag, > tripod, or whatever else I can find in my surroundings to keep the camera > steady. Sure, that's nice, if you have a static subject and all the time in the world. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> My point is focal length has a major effect on whether or not VR will >> even work. I'm speculating that VR won't be useful or practical at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anyone who has one of the 18-200s can try it, too. The 70-200 at 70mm > is a fairly compelling example. The 18-200 with its new VR II system is surely better than early VR, but I still say it's not going to make a positive difference at short focal lengths. Again I'm speculating since I don't own an 18-200. Can any of the users of the 18-200 say without a doubt that it actually works good at 18mm? The other issue is just because a manufacturer puts a "feature" on a product doesn't actual mean that it's good. The 18-200 is not a pro lens and was designed for the consumer grade market. I'm not saying it's a bad lens. I'm saying that Nikon and Canon probably don't see any benefits optically and financially in adding VR in short focal length primes. >> For my shooting style, I've got to the point of using technique, >> beanbag, tripod, or whatever else I can find in my surroundings to >> keep the camera steady. > > Sure, that's nice, if you have a static subject and all the time in > the world. Then you wouldn't be seeing the perceived advantages of VR when doing low light and night shots on moving subjects either. Rita > My feeling on VR and short focal length lenses is it really wouldn't be that > effective and beneficial. On longer length lenses it can come in handy. I > have a 70-200mm VR and I very rarely even use the VR. I shoot low light and > night with my 50mm f/1.4 and really never considered VR as being helpful > with it. I guess I'm so used to using bracing techniques and other methods > to keep the camera relatively stable. Why not? If you're already at a marginal speed, VR will certainly help, and if we're talking about f/1.4 or faster lenses, there's not too much choice on what to improve: VR or much better high ISO (I'm sure this is harder). >> My feeling on VR and short focal length lenses is it really wouldn't >> be that effective and beneficial. On longer length lenses it can [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > too much choice on what to improve: VR or much better high ISO (I'm > sure this is harder). Not necessarily true. VR is not a cure-all and can help in some situations while hurting in others. I've ruined many a good shot thinking I needed VR turned on. I now use it sparingly and worked on honing better technique. Rita > Not necessarily true. VR is not a cure-all and can help in some situations > while hurting in others. I've ruined many a good shot thinking I needed VR > turned on. I now use it sparingly and worked on honing better technique. How in the world could it *ruin* a shot? I can't even imagine, unless you're talking about 1 second exposures on a tripod. I can't think of a downside, other than price, and in the kind of lenses I'm talking about, that's not a real factor anyway. It just has me completely baffled why people come out *against* VR, as if it has some kind of negative effect just by virtue of existing. I've ruined many a good shot by using or trusting the autofocus, but I don't argue against its inclusion in new cameras, just wish they'd offer real focusing screens as an option. And autofocus *does* actively get in the way and ruin shots all the time. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >It just has me completely baffled why people come out *against* VR, as if >it has some kind of negative effect just by virtue of existing. VR/IS reduces sharpness in a negative way. It's not a huge difference in sharpness, but it's there. The question is if it affects the image in a positive way over camera shake, and in that regard it does. I'm not against VR/IS, I just don't consider it a valuable feature since it drives the cost of a lense up quite a bit and reduces technique. So instead of using VR/IS, I've opted to simply increase ISO, or better yet use a tripod. For the average Joe consumer, I think VR/IS works wonders since they don't want to carry around a tripod, or adjust ISO settings, or anything else that might reduce the fun-factor. When I'm taking photos, it's usually because I want to capture the moment and for me it can be fun. But when I'm having fun doing anything else, I'm usually not behind the camera at all. > VR/IS reduces sharpness in a negative way. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > instead of using VR/IS, I've opted to simply increase ISO, or better yet > use a tripod. But we were discussing situations where one is shooting at 1/20s or so handheld, at the fastest aperture and the highest ISO. And, since Jeremy and I were talking about street shooting at night, it is usually not possible to set up a tripod (either because of time, restrictions, or not wanting to attract attention). > For the average Joe consumer, I think VR/IS works wonders since they > don't want to carry around a tripod, or adjust ISO settings, or anything [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > moment and for me it can be fun. But when I'm having fun doing anything > else, I'm usually not behind the camera at all. Ah, I see, whoever does not use a tripod is not serious. No excuses accepted! >But we were discussing situations where one is shooting at 1/20s or so >handheld, at the fastest aperture and the highest ISO. And, since >Jeremy and I were talking about street shooting at night, it is usually >not possible to set up a tripod (either because of time, restrictions, >or not wanting to attract attention). Ok, in that specific scenario, VR/IS may help. But what do you do when you're in a similar scenario, but it's just a bit darker and shutter speed is 1/10s or slower? VR/IS won't help anymore and you're tapped out for ISO and aperture. Do you say it wasn't important and forget it, or do you adapt and use different tools that help you get the job done? When I have an idea about what I want to shoot, I take the tools to do the job with me. That's why I have more than one lense, more than one camera, more than one filter, etc. >> For the average Joe consumer, I think VR/IS works wonders since they >> don't want to carry around a tripod, or adjust ISO settings, or anything [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Ah, I see, whoever does not use a tripod is not serious. No excuses >accepted! Yes and no. As it happens, I don't prefer using a tripod for the reasons you mentioned above, and then some. But if it's needed, then there're no excuses - I have to use it whether I have a lense with VR/IS or not. And as I already mentioned, VR/IS is good for casual shooters. I just don't have a need for it. >>But we were discussing situations where one is shooting at 1/20s or so >>handheld, at the fastest aperture and the highest ISO. And, since [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Do you say it wasn't important and forget it, or do you adapt and use > different tools that help you get the job done? But did you read what I wrote above? It's not a matter of "adapting". > When I have an idea about what I want to shoot, I take the tools to do > the job with me. That's why I have more than one lense, more than one [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > mentioned above, and then some. But if it's needed, then there're no > excuses - I have to use it whether I have a lense with VR/IS or not. In fact I much prefer using a tripod if I can. I like the effects possible with mixed lighting and small apertures, and also the delibaration in setting up the photograph. But I am talking about a different situation here, roughly, candid night photography. Just because you don't take pictures in situations where tripods are impossible (not difficult, but impossible), that means that such situations do not exist? > And as I already mentioned, VR/IS is good for casual shooters. I just > don't have a need for it. So everybody who takes photographs in environments different from yours (where there is always the possibility of using a tripod, apparently) is a casual shooter? Rather a solipsistic point of view. Well, to each his own. > But what do you do when you're in a similar scenario, but it's just a > bit darker and shutter speed is 1/10s or slower? VR/IS won't help [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > And as I already mentioned, VR/IS is good for casual shooters. I just > don't have a need for it. Bill, all very good points. I feel too many people are simply looking for that magic pill to pull off miracles. Master your technique first and you will be amazed at what VR can do when used properly. Like I said, I very rarely use VR now. Rita >> Not necessarily true. VR is not a cure-all and can help in some >> situations while hurting in others. I've ruined many a good shot [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > think of a downside, other than price, and in the kind of lenses I'm > talking about, that's not a real factor anyway. You're claiming you have had a 100% perfect shot ratio with VR turned on? I can say I haven't. > It just has me completely baffled why people come out *against* VR, > as if it has some kind of negative effect just by virtue of existing. > I've ruined many a good shot by using or trusting the autofocus, but > I don't argue against its inclusion in new cameras, just wish they'd > offer real focusing screens as an option. And autofocus *does* > actively get in the way and ruin shots all the time. I'm not arguing against VR either, I'm just pointing out some experiences I have had. The great thing about a VR and AF lens is they add these little switches on them so you can decide what environments VR and AF work or don't work. I like VR and think its great, but I know it's not a cure all for every situation or a substitute for bad technique. Rita > You're claiming you have had a 100% perfect shot ratio with VR turned on? I > can say I haven't. I'm claiming that it has never been a negative factor. It has been either of benefit or of no consequence 100% of the time. There is no downside. > I'm not arguing against VR either, I'm just pointing out some experiences I > have had. The great thing about a VR and AF lens is they add these little > switches on them so you can decide what environments VR and AF work or don't > work. I like VR and think its great, but I know it's not a cure all for > every situation or a substitute for bad technique. But, very much unlike autofocus, it is never *bad* to have it. The only time you have to worry about turning it off is when you're on a tripod, and they say you don't even have to do that any more with VR2 (I've not used VR2, so I can't say). Having VR in a fast 50mm and 35mm would be of such enormous benefit to me that I can hardly even say how much I want it. And yet, every time I mention it, people pop up to say the idea comes straight from Satan, and that real photographers don't need VR. Well, I'll tell you what, there is a difference between hand-holding and using a tripod even at 1/125 with good technique; VR is a benefit to almost all handheld shots, even if the benefit is small. If you don't think it would help at 1/15 or even 1/30 at 50mm you're kidding yourself. I'm not suggesting that your regular 50mm be plagued with the VR that some people seem to resent so much. I'm talking about high-end, exotic lenses. If people can want these stupid f/5.6 trailer-park zooms they keep coming out with, why can't I want something at the other end of the spectrum? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> You're claiming you have had a 100% perfect shot ratio with VR turned on? I >> can say I haven't. > >I'm claiming that it has never been a negative factor. It has been either >of benefit or of no consequence 100% of the time. There is no downside. Personally, I can't say that given results from my 70-200 f/2.8 VR on my D70 or D200. I've seen some loss of sharpness on well lit shots where exposure times were well shorter the 1/f with VR turned on, compared to shots subsequently taken with VR turned off. -- Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html > >> You're claiming you have had a 100% perfect shot ratio with VR turned on? I > >> can say I haven't. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > exposure times were well shorter the 1/f with VR turned on, compared to > shots subsequently taken with VR turned off. Does it look like motion blur or AF error? http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote: > Personally, I can't say that given results from my 70-200 f/2.8 VR on > my D70 or D200. I've seen some loss of sharpness on well lit shots > where exposure times were well shorter the 1/f with VR turned on, > compared to shots subsequently taken with VR turned off. Yep! At least you are honest with yourself when looking at the end product. I have found the limitations of VR on my 70-200 and am comfortable with my decision on when to use it or not. Rita > Having VR in a fast 50mm and 35mm would be of such enormous benefit to me > that I can hardly even say how much I want it. And yet, every time I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > keep coming out with, why can't I want something at the other end of > the spectrum? It is unlikely that Canon/Nikon would make a 50mm with IS/VR. How about getting a Sony or Pentax with AS and a couple of prime lenses? http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > It is unlikely that Canon/Nikon would make a 50mm with IS/VR. How about > getting a Sony or Pentax with AS and a couple of prime lenses? Well, if I were to get a whole different new camera system with a couple of new lenses, it'll be a Leica M8. I'm not going to choose a whole new camera based on image stabilization. :) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > It is unlikely that Canon/Nikon would make a 50mm with IS/VR. How about > > getting a Sony or Pentax with AS and a couple of prime lenses? > > Well, if I were to get a whole different new camera system with a couple > of new lenses, it'll be a Leica M8. I'm not going to choose a whole new > camera based on image stabilization. :) But the price of a cheap Sony or Pentax camera plus a couple of primes would not be much higher than a couple of Canon/Nikon primes with IS/VR. IS/VR seems to cost more than $300-$400 extra each lens. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > The only > time you have to worry about turning it off is when you're on a tripod, > and they say you don't even have to do that any more with VR2 (I've not > used VR2, so I can't say). My macro lens says to turn it off when mounted on a tripod (VR II). Haven't tried it on a tripod yet. SignatureRebecca Ore >> You're claiming you have had a 100% perfect shot ratio with VR >> turned on? I can say I haven't. > > I'm claiming that it has never been a negative factor. It has been > either of benefit or of no consequence 100% of the time. There is no > downside. I think I figured out where our confusion is coming from. Maybe your standards and expectations of an acceptable shot are lower than mine? >> I'm not arguing against VR either, I'm just pointing out some >> experiences I have had. The great thing about a VR and AF lens is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tripod, and they say you don't even have to do that any more with VR2 > (I've not used VR2, so I can't say). The only VR II lens I have is the 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro Nikkor. For my style of shooting, macro and manual only the VR function is totally worthless on 1:1 macro. I also have the 105mm AF-D Micro Nikkor and a side-by-side test for using my shooting style and needs the newer VR version did absolutely nothing for me. The 105mm VR is a spectacular lens, but didn't buy me and benefits over my older lens. > Having VR in a fast 50mm and 35mm would be of such enormous benefit > to me that I can hardly even say how much I want it. And yet, every [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > all handheld shots, even if the benefit is small. If you don't think > it would help at 1/15 or even 1/30 at 50mm you're kidding yourself. Some of the *experts* in this group have mentioned that the addition of the extra glass to make the VR work will reduce image quality. I can safely say that I didn't see any negative effects when comparing the old and new 105mm Nikkors side-by-side. Does this mean that I want VR in all my lenses? Hell no! I must say that 98% of my shooting from macro on up is handheld under natural and low light. Working on better technique has helped me immensely. > I'm not suggesting that your regular 50mm be plagued with the VR that > some people seem to resent so much. I'm talking about high-end, > exotic lenses. If people can want these stupid f/5.6 trailer-park > zooms they keep coming out with, why can't I want something at the > other end of the spectrum? I guess a choice would be nice? I love my 50mm f/1.4 and never even considered the thought of wanting VR on it. I sure as hell wouldn't trade my 85mm f/1.4 if Nikon introduced a VR and/or AF-S version. Some things you simply can't improve on without sacrificing in other areas. Rita > I think I figured out where our confusion is coming from. Maybe your > standards and expectations of an acceptable shot are lower than mine? Or maybe you're blowing shots and looking for something to blame? I'm saying that I have never seen even the slightest, most inconsequential negative effect from VR. > Some of the *experts* in this group have mentioned that the addition of the > extra glass to make the VR work will reduce image quality. That is to presuppose that more elements equals lower quality, which is clearly false. > I guess a choice would be nice? I love my 50mm f/1.4 and never even > considered the thought of wanting VR on it. And I'm not suggesting adding VR to it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> I think I figured out where our confusion is coming from. Maybe your >> standards and expectations of an acceptable shot are lower than mine? > > Or maybe you're blowing shots and looking for something to blame? Where did I say I was "blaming" VR? I think that it's more a result of one's (my) shooting style (good or bad). Maybe I'm so good that I mastered my technique and can shoot better than with VR compensation on? Maybe my technique is so terrible that VR muddied the shots even more? I'm just stating my personal observations and what other people have told me about their VR experiences. Yes, some people have actually experienced the same results as me. > I'm saying that I have never seen even the slightest, most > inconsequential negative effect from VR. Sure you have. Anyone that has used the 70-200mm VR experienced its quarks and adjusted their style to compensate. It's a great lens and VR works great on it when properly used. >> Some of the *experts* in this group have mentioned that the addition >> of the extra glass to make the VR work will reduce image quality. > > That is to presuppose that more elements equals lower quality, which > is clearly false. I'm just going by what some of our resident experts said. Not too long ago we were told the world is flat and believed it. >> I guess a choice would be nice? I love my 50mm f/1.4 and never even >> considered the thought of wanting VR on it. > > And I'm not suggesting adding VR to it. A good point. I wouldn't buy a VR 50 anyway, no need for it. Rita >> I'm saying that I have never seen even the slightest, most >> inconsequential negative effect from VR. > > Sure you have. Anyone that has used the 70-200mm VR experienced its quarks > and adjusted their style to compensate. It's a great lens and VR works > great on it when properly used. Well, I have the 70-200 and have yet to stumble upon these quirks. The only times I've shut off the VR have been when on a tripod (rare for that lens) and when I wanted to see through the viewfinder how much visible difference it made. > I'm just going by what some of our resident experts said. Not too long ago > we were told the world is flat and believed it. No one reasonable has believed the world to be flat for a couple thousand years at least. It was only very recently that someone decided to rewrite history and claim that there were somewhat-educated people in the 15th century who thought it was flat. They knew not only that it was not flat, but had a reasonably accurate idea of how large it was, too. Apparently people are more gullible in modern times, to believe anything they are told, like Christopher Columbus being the only one who knew the world was round. Anything I could tell you about the effect that the VR elements have on image quality is either (a) conjecture, (b) hearsay, or (c) bollocks. I am not an expert in lens design. I can only go on what I *do* know, which suggests that, while the image *could* perchance be sharper from the 70-200 if it had no VR, this doesn't really matter since the quality is so good anyway that any extra would be superfluous. But if I try to tell you about lens design, please don't just take what I say as gospel. The world is not flat, but don't take my word for it; I didn't measure it. I just heard that's how it was. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Sure you have. Anyone that has used the 70-200mm VR experienced its >> quarks and adjusted their style to compensate. It's a great lens [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for that lens) and when I wanted to see through the viewfinder how > much visible difference it made. There you go! If you haven't ever or rarely shut VR off and shot in many various conditions other than on a tripod than you clearly haven't even begun to learn how much better that lens will do. It's a phenomenal lens that is even much better when you use it properly. Do yourself a favor and shut VR off on some of your upcoming shoots and you might be surprised at how well this lens does. I think Ed Ruff mentioned he could see a difference. Maybe he can confirm his experience if he wants to? > Anything I could tell you about the effect that the VR elements have > on image quality is either (a) conjecture, (b) hearsay, or (c) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > don't take my word for it; I didn't measure it. I just heard that's > how it was. LOL! Good point. I don't know how true it is, but many have claimed the 80-200 is much sharper than the 70-200. I don't have an 80-200 to test my 70-200 against so I can't confirm this. Would I ever get rid of my 70-200? HELL NO! It's a great lens, actually one of my favorites. Rita > There you go! If you haven't ever or rarely shut VR off and shot in many > various conditions other than on a tripod than you clearly haven't even [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 70-200? > HELL NO! It's a great lens, actually one of my favorites. Some claim, with some reason, that the 70-200 f2.8 non IS is sharper than its IS version. But VR/IS won't affect your shot negatively due to it being turned on or off, because the elements are there, whether activated or not. Your statement that VR can negatively affect image quality needs some additional explanation. The only way I can see that it would affect a shot is if the photographer became too dependent on it to save shots, and ignored proper technique, which is hardly the fault of the stabiliztion system, now is it? SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Some claim, with some reason, that the 70-200 f2.8 non IS is sharper than > its IS version. But VR/IS won't affect your shot negatively due to it being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > proper technique, which is hardly the fault of the stabiliztion system, now > is it? A couple of other caveats: on some of the older IS systems, the IS is not tripod-friendly (as in, it will introduce motion that isn't there when it is turned on). On better IS systems, it remains useful even on a tripod, as it will apparently dampen shutter vibration. There was some speculation as well that a bug in the IS system was responsible for problems with blurriness in portrait orientation shots on the new Canon 70-300 lens, but I stopped tracking the issue when I decided I didn't have the money anyway, so I don't know how it was concluded. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. >> Some claim, with some reason, that the 70-200 f2.8 non IS is sharper >> than its IS version. But VR/IS won't affect your shot negatively [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > when it is turned on). On better IS systems, it remains useful even > on a tripod, as it will apparently dampen shutter vibration. Thank you! The 70-200 has the earlier version of VR, but it is still fantastic. This same phenomena you describe is also experienced when the shooter has mastered their handheld technique and finds VR a detriment. Like I said earlier, there is a proper time and place to use VR and knowing when to use it is key for that perfect shot. I think a lot of confusion comes from people using VR as a crutch for poor technique and they have the delusion that VR is a cure all for every situation. If the would turn the VR off and learn proper technique they will get more enjoyment out of their lens. Rita Skip, great website >> There you go! If you haven't ever or rarely shut VR off and shot in many >> various conditions other than on a tripod than you clearly haven't even [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >proper technique, which is hardly the fault of the stabiliztion system, now >is it? > There you go! If you haven't ever or rarely shut VR off and shot in many > various conditions other than on a tripod than you clearly haven't even > begun to learn how much better that lens will do. It's a phenomenal lens > that is even much better when you use it properly. Do yourself a favor and > shut VR off on some of your upcoming shoots and you might be surprised at > how well this lens does. I still haven't seen any explanation of how VR could possibly have a negative effect by being switched on, or how shutting it off could improve anything. What is it that you contend happens when VR is on that makes things worse? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> There you go! If you haven't ever or rarely shut VR off and shot in >> many various conditions other than on a tripod than you clearly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > improve anything. What is it that you contend happens when VR is on > that makes things worse? LOL! You have a VR lens? If so, turn it off and learn how to improve your technique. The on/off switch gives you the luxury of conducting these experiments for yourself. Rita >> I still haven't seen any explanation of how VR could possibly have a >> negative effect by being switched on, or how shutting it off could [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > technique. The on/off switch gives you the luxury of conducting these > experiments for yourself. Yes, I have a VR lens. I have turned it off, I have tried it, and I still am unable to find even the most remote, miniscule benefit in doing so, except when the camera is on a tripod. I am also unable to dream up any reason why such benefits would exist. I take it from your continued refusal to answer the question that you can't find any, either? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> LOL! You have a VR lens? If so, turn it off and learn how to >> improve your technique. The on/off switch gives you the luxury of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doing so, except when the camera is on a tripod. I am also unable to > dream up any reason why such benefits would exist. This would indicate that your technique is severely lacking and has vast room for improvement. Once you improve your technique and learn how to properly use your lens only then will you start enjoying it. > I take it from your continued refusal to answer the question that you > can't find any, either? The question has been answered; you just seem to want to play me along. I refuse to play. Rita >>> LOL! You have a VR lens? If so, turn it off and learn how to >>> improve your technique. The on/off switch gives you the luxury of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The question has been answered; you just seem to want to play me along. I > refuse to play. Rita, the question certainly has not been answered. Your continued refusal to do so indicates the corner in which you have found yourself painted. The only "answer" was a comment that some earlier IS versions would not operate properly on a tripod, and that Canon had a design flaw, since corrected, in the new 70-300 IS. Neither of these is indicative of an inherent problem with IS/VR/OS/AS. Unless you are a yoga master, there is no way that "improved technique" will render the human body as a replacement for a tripod, and, then, I'm not sure. And only the older Canon IS had an issue with tripods, not the more recent generations, nor any of the Nikon iterations of VR. You, lady, are the one playing us along, hoping that we won't continue to call you on your statements. If there is, indeed, an issue, all of us would find it illuminating to be so informed. Since I have several IS lenses, and have experimented with the on/off idea, I've not seen any inherent problem with IS. The only shot that was affected was one shot on a tripod, indoors, with the IS engaged. That does not fall under the heading of "used properly," and is something addressed, clearly, in the owner's manual. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> The question has been answered; you just seem to want to play me >> along. I refuse to play. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > properly," and is something addressed, clearly, in the owner's > manual. Total and utter nonsense! Here is a reply from Ed Ruff to Jeremy Nixon: On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:09:55 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote: >> You're claiming you have had a 100% perfect shot ratio with VR turned on? >> I >> can say I haven't. > >I'm claiming that it has never been a negative factor. It has been either >of benefit or of no consequence 100% of the time. There is no downside. Personally, I can't say that given results from my 70-200 f/2.8 VR on my D70 or D200. I've seen some loss of sharpness on well lit shots where exposure times were well shorter the 1/f with VR turned on, compared to shots subsequently taken with VR turned off. -- Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) Do a little research and you'll find more people that experience this with the 70-200. Like I said, learn how to properly use your lens and you will be amazed at what it can do for you. Turn the VR off and improve your technique. If maximum quality images are important to you then you need to stop the pigheadedness and start honing better shooting skills. Rita >>> The question has been answered; you just seem to want to play me >>> along. I refuse to play. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Rita NOT "Total and utter nonsense!" You are one of the most singularly annoying people I've had the displeasure to come in contact with of late. His comment doesn't make a lot of sense, to wit, "exposure times were well shorter the 1/f with VR turned on." Not only that, but he is the only person, including you, who has commented directly on that, and I'd be willing to guess that his VR is faulty, since that is the ONLY instance of that I've seen reported in the ten years since Canon introduced the technology, and the, what, 6 years since Nikon did. I probably know more about how to handle a lens than you do, and I know I have a lot more experience with it than you. My technique does not need improving, your communication skills and grasp of veracity do need a world of upgrading. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > NOT "Total and utter nonsense!" You are one of the most singularly > annoying people I've had the displeasure to come in contact with of > late. LOL! Don't get mad since I'm only annoying to people that are so clueless and go through life with blinders on so they can't learn anything new. Hey, you're the one that doesn't know how to properly use your equipment, not me. Getting mad at me for your shortcomings aren't going to make them magically appear. You need to practice, practice, practice. > His comment doesn't make a lot of sense, to wit, "exposure > times were well shorter the 1/f with VR turned on." Not only that, > but he is the only person, including you, who has commented directly > on that, and I'd be willing to guess that his VR is faulty, since Of course it doesn't make sense to *YOU* since you would have to admit you are wrong. He is not the only person that has experienced this. And no, his VR isn't faulty and you know this. You need to get off of Usenet and do a little research if this is so important to you. > that is the ONLY instance of that I've seen reported in the ten years > since Canon introduced the technology, and the, what, 6 years since > Nikon did. I probably know more about how to handle a lens than you > do, and I know I have a lot more experience with it than you. My > technique does not need improving, your communication skills and > grasp of veracity do need a world of upgrading. Hey, lens handling skills do go beyond wiping the dust off of it. My communications skills are irrelevant to the topic of you simply not simply having learned how to use your lens properly. Even a functionally illiterate person can clearly see your motive here is to not improve your skills with the great VR system. Rita >> NOT "Total and utter nonsense!" You are one of the most singularly >> annoying people I've had the displeasure to come in contact with of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > magically > appear. You need to practice, practice, practice. Dear Rita, What makes you think that I don't know how to properly use my equipment? Like I said, I've got more experience at this than you do, most likely. >> His comment doesn't make a lot of sense, to wit, "exposure >> times were well shorter the 1/f with VR turned on." Not only that, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > do > a little research if this is so important to you. Not making sense of a sentence that contains the phrase, "well shorter the 1/f with VR tunrned on" has nothing to do with wanting to admit that I'm wrong or not. I don't know what he's trying to say, so I can't tell whose in the wrong. >> that is the ONLY instance of that I've seen reported in the ten years >> since Canon introduced the technology, and the, what, 6 years since [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > illiterate person can clearly see your motive here is to not improve your > skills with the great VR system. Again, Rita, I know fully how to use my lenses properly. What you have not, at any point, done is to demonstrate your "skill" in this very same area. My motive here is to get information onto this newsgroup. If you have a valid example of how VR/IS can ruin a shot, when properly implemented, many of us would like to see it. So far, you certainly haven't provided such. I noticed the way you try to drag a red herring across the discussion by accusing me of a motive that is far from the truth, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand. By the way, I use Canon, not Nikon, so I don't use the "great VR system," I use the "excellent IS system." SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > By the way, I use Canon, not Nikon, so I don't use the "great > VR system," I use the "excellent IS system." Oh, that explains it! sh.t in equals sh.t out. And all this time I thought I was conversing with someone that strived for the highest image quality possible. Yes, I now see why you need "IS" on all the time. I feel for you. Rita >> By the way, I use Canon, not Nikon, so I don't use the "great >> VR system," I use the "excellent IS system." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > possible. Yes, I now see why you need "IS" on all the time. I feel for > you. Oh, my, you've gotten entertaining, now. And here I was hoping against hope that you'd see how silly you are sounding, but it seems that's impossible. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Oh, that explains it! sh.t in equals sh.t out. And all this time I >> thought [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > against hope that you'd see how silly you are sounding, but it seems > that's impossible. Hey, you're the one as happy as a pig rolling in sh.t with crappy images, not me. You might as well keep everything on full auto and never learn how to properly use your equipment. Rita >>> Oh, that explains it! sh.t in equals sh.t out. And all this time I >>> thought [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > how > to properly use your equipment. Dear girl, I've had work published in several magazines and one book, pointedly a instructional book. I've had a few award winning images at art competitions, so what you have to say about images that, up to now, you've obviously never seen, matters not a whit to me, except to show me how little you know about the subject on which you wax so effusive. Now I just see you're one of those little people who fixate on a brand, and anything else is "crap" to them. Sorry, girl, but you are irrelevant. SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Dear girl, I've had work published in several magazines and one book, > pointedly a instructional book. I've had a few award winning images [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fixate on a brand, and anything else is "crap" to them. Sorry, girl, > but you are irrelevant. And I'm suposed to be awed by these credentials? I've had images published without even trying. You see, I have no need to brag. And yes, at the end of the day we are all irrelevant so I really don't care. Tell me something that has some meaning? Rita > of the day we are all irrelevant so I really don't care. Tell me something > that has some meaning? I'm not Skip, but how's this: "We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on. " RP Feynman. Or maybe: "I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." Same guy. Deep (if a posteriori obvious), no? > This would indicate that your technique is severely lacking and has vast > room for improvement. Once you improve your technique and learn how to > properly use your lens only then will you start enjoying it. If you think your technique is so good that it can replace VR, you are kidding yourself. >> I take it from your continued refusal to answer the question that you >> can't find any, either? > > The question has been answered; you just seem to want to play me along. No, the question has most certainly not been answered. There hasn't even been an attempt to answer it. > I refuse to play. You already are playing. You're playing the same little game that someone always pops up to play when VR/IS/AS is discussed. There is always someone who wants to argue the "against" side, but in every case, the only thing they can come up with goes something like, "Real photographers don't need it! I'm a real photographer! If your technique were nearly as good as mine, you wouldn't need it either! Only newbies need a crutch like that! Not anyone at the pinnacle of the art and craft such as myself! You should be honored to be in my presence and receiving my wisdom, peasant!" Basically, the same thing people said about automatic focus, automatic exposure, and who knows what else. Except that automatic focus and automatic exposure clearly can get in the way, and do ruin shots, but we figured out that they help more often than not and that their shortcomings can be worked around. With VR, I can't even find a downside, and yet it gets the same treatment. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> This would indicate that your technique is severely lacking and has >> vast room for improvement. Once you improve your technique and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you think your technique is so good that it can replace VR, you are > kidding yourself. Not in the slightest! >>> I take it from your continued refusal to answer the question that >>> you can't find any, either? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, the question has most certainly not been answered. There hasn't > even been an attempt to answer it. You just haven't been paying attention. >> I refuse to play. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the art and craft such as myself! You should be honored to be in my > presence and receiving my wisdom, peasant!" Nonsense! If you knew how to properly use your lens than this wouldn't even be an issue for you. > Basically, the same thing people said about automatic focus, automatic > exposure, and who knows what else. Except that automatic focus and > automatic exposure clearly can get in the way, and do ruin shots, but > we figured out that they help more often than not and that their > shortcomings can be worked around. With VR, I can't even find a > downside, and yet it gets the same treatment. Trust me, I have no problems with AF or VR since Nikon was nice enough to put a switch on the camera/lens that allows me to turn it off when it's not needed. I don't need VR or AF for 1:1 macro nor do I need VR on my 70-200 when I have a reasonable shutter speed of 1/800 and above. Yes, using VR when you have more than enough ample shutter speed can cause a "muddy" image. This answers your question that you already know the answer to. Of course, if you were just looking for average image quality there is no harm in leaving VR on 100% of the time. Rita Here is a review that shows how great the 70-200 VR is. They also have some comments on VR. "We can also see that using the VR Active mode is actually detrimental to the image quality when used for normal static shooting situations." http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-70-200mmVR.htm Of course, this photographer knows his equipment and how to use it. He also knows when to use the switch. Rita > "We can also see that using the VR Active mode is actually detrimental to > the image quality when used for normal static shooting situations." > > http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-70-200mmVR.htm You must have missed the bit just before that: "Of the three images shot at f22, the VR Normal shot is the best of the three..." The review is lacking any examples of VR causing negative effects versus being shut off, when shooting handheld. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> "We can also see that using the VR Active mode is actually detrimental to >> the image quality when used for normal static shooting situations." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Of course, this photographer knows his equipment and how to use it. He also >> knows when to use the switch. I think it's obvious Rita is trying to point out that a user must be aware of the differences in the VR settings. Use the wrong setting for some situations, and image quality suffers. >You must have missed the bit just before that: "Of the three images shot >at f22, the VR Normal shot is the best of the three..." True, but you missed this part: "We can also see that using the VR Active mode is actually DETRIMENTAL TO THE IMAGE QUALITY when used for normal static shooting situations." [emphasis added] >The review is lacking any examples of VR causing negative effects versus >being shut off, when shooting handheld. Look again, the example is there. The third car-handle image down, directly below the one you reference at "VR ON - Active". The image is clearly worse and unusable, just as they said. That shows what some people know about IS/VR lenses. It's a great feature for the uninitiated masses, but if you KNOW how to shoot without it, then you probably don't need it and can work without it. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message