VR 70-200 f 2.8 on D2X

Started Jul 11, 2006 | Discussions thread
cameracommando Regular Member • Posts: 292
Re: Picture: VR 70-200 f 2.8

Cappy227 wrote:

Camera Commando, for best results, your "side-by-side" test with
the Canon IS assumes that you and your friend are the same person,
doing the same thing, at the same time - merely with different
equipment. Since you're not, it's not really a good test or proof
that one works better than another. For the sake of argument, that

I agree they are not the same person. Note I did preface it with 'under as near identical shots as is real world practical'. He uses both the 70-200 IS and 100-400 IS. We have the same framing, same shutter speed, aperture, same ISO, same fill ratios (roughly), and fire within 1/8 second of each other quite a bit... his fill flash gets into my shots too often, and vice versa. Mind you, this is all on the same subject while standing shoulder to shoulder with him (literally).

We have compared the 70-200 shots side by side, the only difference being his 1.3X vs my 1.5X, he zooms a bit more and the result is the images are framed nearly identically. We constantly compare the 100-400 IS shots with 70-200 VR.. hey we have the same shots, why not? We see a difference in how 'blurry' the shots are, mainly from motion blur (sleeking). Focal plane issues are not predominant when sleeking is seen. He shoots 1DMKII, I shoot D1X/D2X and both do well enough for focal point precision (though the D1X is better for what I do). His system does not result with this sleekish artifact nearly as much as mine, all else being as close as possible/practical in the real world.

So, in that respect, [he + his equipment] outshoots [me + my equipment] in nearly identical conditions. He is Canon, I am Nikon. By the way, I have shot Canon in the same shooting style, and MY results are better for this type of artifact under these conditions with Canon. Draw your own conclusions.

One other interesting thing... If I do exactly the same technique with my 80-200 AFS (shooting beside him with IS), the sleeking in my shots is gone! Only artifacts of subject movement are apparent, non-moving objects do NOT exhibit sleeking. Same results with 70-200 and VR turned OFF. My shots without VR approach his with IS for percentage of critically sharp shots, assuming I don't defy handholding rules. I try to keep shutter above 1/180 typically, even at 200(x1.5)mm it works for me consistently. It sucks that VR does not accommodate my style and needs as well as his IS accommodates his needs and style when we are shooting side by side.

Maybe there is a scape goat here... let's just say I have a bad lens so Nikon can save face. This will be #2 for bad 70-200 VRs for me. Regardless, it is going into Nikon for repair and a check-up as soon as I can ship it off. I am happily back to shooting the 80-200 until the situation is resolved.

Bottom line is I would like to have VR ability the way it should function, which is better than it does for me. The first step is to admit there may be a VR problem (limitation if you must be politically correct) worth looking at. Ideally, the next step is Nikon looks at it/ addresses it/ fixes it. Unfortunately, I am too small of a niche in the shooting envelope for them to worry about... nah, it ain't gonna happen.

-- hide signature --

... Stalk Well

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow