LitoD80
Veteran Member
Don't mean to be rude, but as I stated before, the VR system has nothing to do with software. It is incapable of altering the image. It is a mechanical system.
--
Lito
D80 + Mac
--
Lito
D80 + Mac
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
BIG DOUBTS about my 70-300 VR Unit
- Thread starter popeye69
- Start date
do you understand what VR is?
Bill Randall and Brooks P,
On a lark I read your two posts and found something good. Even though I think both of you were talking about a potential problem when using AF-on, I took a chance and set my D50 with 55-200VR to that setting. Yes it works as you say, but what was good for me, is that I can FINALLY get my VR to work! My lens has gotten terrible with VR on. The first shot after the camera is turned on works as advertised, but all other shots afterwards are terrible. I could never get shots at for example 1/5th sec shutter speed after that first good shot. (Yes I'm waiting a half to a full second for the VR to settle down before taking the shot).
I had given up on the VR in my lens until I now just tried this. I'm going to test it even more. This is the third lens I've found to have this VR problem. Putting the VR on the AE-L/AF-L button seems to "fix" the problem. I will test it some more and probably start a new thread if it works.
Guy Moscoso
On a lark I read your two posts and found something good. Even though I think both of you were talking about a potential problem when using AF-on, I took a chance and set my D50 with 55-200VR to that setting. Yes it works as you say, but what was good for me, is that I can FINALLY get my VR to work! My lens has gotten terrible with VR on. The first shot after the camera is turned on works as advertised, but all other shots afterwards are terrible. I could never get shots at for example 1/5th sec shutter speed after that first good shot. (Yes I'm waiting a half to a full second for the VR to settle down before taking the shot).
I had given up on the VR in my lens until I now just tried this. I'm going to test it even more. This is the third lens I've found to have this VR problem. Putting the VR on the AE-L/AF-L button seems to "fix" the problem. I will test it some more and probably start a new thread if it works.
Guy Moscoso
popeye69 wrote:
... You can only get a great bokeh with VR OFF. the VR option
How can that be? The VR mechanism is an optical device that just compensates for camera movement. It simply moves an element in direct opposition to camera movement in order to keep the image steady. This can't possibley "simulate edge sharpening" nor can it have an effect on bokeh. Of course, i'm open to anything so if there's something not clear then describe what you think is happening.
... You can only get a great bokeh with VR OFF. the VR option
...
How can that be? The VR mechanism is an optical device that just compensates for camera movement. It simply moves an element in direct opposition to camera movement in order to keep the image steady. This can't possibley "simulate edge sharpening" nor can it have an effect on bokeh. Of course, i'm open to anything so if there's something not clear then describe what you think is happening.
Maybe I am wrong, but there was a very interesting topic about the secondary effects of VR on the pictures. (I think it was made by a member of this forum).
There was a difference that affected the depth of field (in some cases) by rendering the normal soft backround too crisp with some strange accuantation effects.
When I speak about software sharpness maybe I should speak more about the Bios of CPU inside the lens. I am pretty sure that an electronic lens (especially the most sophisticated ones, with VR.) has an inside "program" on it's firmware/bios that gives some info to the camera while taking the pictures. but maybe again, I am wrong... but all the small electronics & bigger ones work like that today. because we dont work with physical elements anymore (film), only with 0 and 1.
So it is very easy to change the behaviour of a picture by installing / changing the bios software inside the chip.
I also got some good pictures with this lens, but never really satisfiing at 300mm. maybe I expected too much of it.
I am not rich & always bought my stuff second hand. That was my first new lens & got 2 Bronica GS-1 zoom lenses for the same price...
There was a difference that affected the depth of field (in some cases) by rendering the normal soft backround too crisp with some strange accuantation effects.
When I speak about software sharpness maybe I should speak more about the Bios of CPU inside the lens. I am pretty sure that an electronic lens (especially the most sophisticated ones, with VR.) has an inside "program" on it's firmware/bios that gives some info to the camera while taking the pictures. but maybe again, I am wrong... but all the small electronics & bigger ones work like that today. because we dont work with physical elements anymore (film), only with 0 and 1.
So it is very easy to change the behaviour of a picture by installing / changing the bios software inside the chip.
I also got some good pictures with this lens, but never really satisfiing at 300mm. maybe I expected too much of it.
I am not rich & always bought my stuff second hand. That was my first new lens & got 2 Bronica GS-1 zoom lenses for the same price...
there must certainly is some type of program running in the lens
here is a nice explanation
http://www.nikon.com/about/technology/core/software/vr_e/
and in the end it is an optical system -
basically we would call that firmware and you can probabaly change the behavior of VR in the lens - i believe they are in fact tuned
but you can always turn VR off you know
if your complaint is about VR it is in a lot of Nikon lenses
but i think you are really - as we would say - barking up the wrong tree - there is no problem with VR
300mm is very challenging focal length to get sharp pictures at regardless of lens - it amplifies any movement significantly
and i think it has been somewhat acknowledged that at 300mm that 70-300 isn't as strong as at 200mm
and i bought a 85mm f1.8 Nikkor lens that is 35 years old for next to nothing
but what lens do you have that is better at 300mm than the 70-300 VR - will autofocus, has VR and will mount on a Nikon camera?
oh, and i want it for less than $1000
if you look above you will see my samples with 100% crop of the middle at 150mm and 300mm and yes, the 150mm is sharper but the 300mm is not bad, not bad at all for that amount of reach
good shooting!
David
LitoD80
Veteran Member
David314 wrote:
...
Clearly there is no image altering software on the lens.
--
Lito
D80 + Mac
...
David, great link and great explanation. Thank you!
Clearly there is no image altering software on the lens.
--
Lito
D80 + Mac
Adam Bluhm
Forum Enthusiast
Interesting thread. Makes me want to pull out the 70-300VR/D50 and pixel peep at 300mm.
I've been happy with the setup, but I haven't owned more expensive gear so I don't have professional gear with which to compare. I've been satisfied, though.
--
I've been happy with the setup, but I haven't owned more expensive gear so I don't have professional gear with which to compare. I've been satisfied, though.
--
fdevyatkin
Veteran Member
Hey Mom! That guy's pointing his D80 at us and his 70-300VR is at 300mm and f/9.
Don't come any closer with that lens. I see it's at 300mm and f/5.6.
I know these aren't National Geographic level, but you're on the D40-80 site.
Fred
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fdevyatkin/
Don't come any closer with that lens. I see it's at 300mm and f/5.6.
I know these aren't National Geographic level, but you're on the D40-80 site.
Fred
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fdevyatkin/
anthony718
Veteran Member
out of camera jpegs @ 300mm on a d80
only some cropping
more here if curious http://anthonyc.zenfolio.com/p145680090
--
http://anthonyc.zenfolio.com/
only some cropping
more here if curious http://anthonyc.zenfolio.com/p145680090
--
http://anthonyc.zenfolio.com/
Wayne N.
Veteran Member
You proved it Fred, the 70-300VR sucks and I'm taking mine back. Lol - awesome shots!
Cheers,
Wayne
http://www.pbase.com/wayne_n
David Chao
Well-known member
Caveat: I don't have this lens, so take my explanations with a grain of salt.
--Dave
Most consumer lenses perform worst at their telephoto end and don't really sharpen up across the frame until you hit f11 or even smaller. With the latest 10MP and 12MP APS sensors, though, you start seeing diffraction issues by f16 or f13.
Actually, the problem may be with the shutter speed. I think I read from one of Thom Hogan's posts that the VR frequency or response is around 1/2000 sec(?). This means a shutter speed around that with VR on may actually induce blur effects and decrease sharpness. I believe it was also Thom who noted that that's why it may surprise a lot of us that a lot of the sports pros shooting with the long teles sometimes don't use VR/IS for this reason.
And maybe this is why you're really disappointed. At the tele end, the primes still outperform the latest zooms.
--Dave
NicolasCh
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this example.
I understand #2 is 100% crop.
My 70-300 is not better. I can understand and live with the fact that it isn't so good at 300mm.
But I've been a bit disappointed lately by its performances at 70mm too. My 18-70 seems to be better at 70mm. Which is not what I expected when I bought this lens.
I understand #2 is 100% crop.
My 70-300 is not better. I can understand and live with the fact that it isn't so good at 300mm.
But I've been a bit disappointed lately by its performances at 70mm too. My 18-70 seems to be better at 70mm. Which is not what I expected when I bought this lens.
sandy b
Veteran Member
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13
I feel the 70-300 vr is as good as any lens in its class. Reviews seem to bear this out. Again this range and price is always a comprimise.
I feel the 70-300 vr is as good as any lens in its class. Reviews seem to bear this out. Again this range and price is always a comprimise.
Popeye69,
The 70-300VR isn't a bad lens for what it is. At 300mm, you really need to stop it down further and even then, you need to accept the fact that weight to quality ratio wise, it's not bad. Try lugging along a 300mm f/2.8 on a photo shoot and you'll see what I mean.
Secondly, you're comparing a Sigma 135 f/2.8 and assumed that on a DX body, it shoots at 200mm and so in effect, it is a 200mm lens. It is "NOT", at least optically wise. A Sigma 135 mounted on a D80 "DOES NOT" automatically turn this lens optically to a 200mm. It is only cropped from 135mm into 200mm, so I don't think it's fair to compare this lens against a 70-300VR which does optically provide a "true" 300mm focal length with no cropping, until you mount it on a DX body.
Another issue you need to consider is that, prime glass has less glass elements, so light (which you need to make a picture) has less to travel. So, prime lenses will almost always have a slight advantage compared to a zoom lens. Though these days, Nikon had made great strides in making their zooms perform better than their older primes thanks to better optical engineering and superior coating (Nano Coating on the later lenses help improve constrast = better acuity).
So if you need to compare lenses, please compare a 70-300VR against a similar optical zoom lens offering say against a Sigma or a Tamron or even a Canon and you will find that at 300mm, this is the focal length that you may not be happy with when it's not stopped down a bit.
I've looked at the pictures posted here and they are consistent with this level of zoom lens. If you want something better, then you either need to step up to a 300mm f/2.8 or a 200-400, both are extremely heavier than the 70-300VR. The 200-400 is a heavy as my desktop tower computer. Is it practical to carry your desktop tower computer up in the mountains all the time, when you can carry a lighter laptop with less CPU power than your Quad Core? This is the compromise you have to make when you have the 70-300VR.
If my assignments call for certain size publication, I will bring my 200-400 along since I'm getting paid for it. If not, I do have the 70-300VR and for its size and versatility for travel photos with my family.
Rick.
The 70-300VR isn't a bad lens for what it is. At 300mm, you really need to stop it down further and even then, you need to accept the fact that weight to quality ratio wise, it's not bad. Try lugging along a 300mm f/2.8 on a photo shoot and you'll see what I mean.
Secondly, you're comparing a Sigma 135 f/2.8 and assumed that on a DX body, it shoots at 200mm and so in effect, it is a 200mm lens. It is "NOT", at least optically wise. A Sigma 135 mounted on a D80 "DOES NOT" automatically turn this lens optically to a 200mm. It is only cropped from 135mm into 200mm, so I don't think it's fair to compare this lens against a 70-300VR which does optically provide a "true" 300mm focal length with no cropping, until you mount it on a DX body.
Another issue you need to consider is that, prime glass has less glass elements, so light (which you need to make a picture) has less to travel. So, prime lenses will almost always have a slight advantage compared to a zoom lens. Though these days, Nikon had made great strides in making their zooms perform better than their older primes thanks to better optical engineering and superior coating (Nano Coating on the later lenses help improve constrast = better acuity).
So if you need to compare lenses, please compare a 70-300VR against a similar optical zoom lens offering say against a Sigma or a Tamron or even a Canon and you will find that at 300mm, this is the focal length that you may not be happy with when it's not stopped down a bit.
I've looked at the pictures posted here and they are consistent with this level of zoom lens. If you want something better, then you either need to step up to a 300mm f/2.8 or a 200-400, both are extremely heavier than the 70-300VR. The 200-400 is a heavy as my desktop tower computer. Is it practical to carry your desktop tower computer up in the mountains all the time, when you can carry a lighter laptop with less CPU power than your Quad Core? This is the compromise you have to make when you have the 70-300VR.
If my assignments call for certain size publication, I will bring my 200-400 along since I'm getting paid for it. If not, I do have the 70-300VR and for its size and versatility for travel photos with my family.
Rick.
The reason why Pros don't use VR that often is because in sport events, most of these cameras are either mounted on good tripods and triggered by photographers either remotely or physically in person. Having VR on means there's a delay induced. And besides, you "need" to let the image on the viewfinder stabilize before you take the shot in order to take advantage of the lens' VR, so this delay is not always acceptable to some pros where high speed action are involved.
On higher shutter speeds, there's really no reason to use VR. Before the advent of VR, people had been getting great sharp photos without it. So if you're having problems getting sharp photos at 1/250 and higher, then you may want to evaluate your hand holding techniques.
According to what I was told by Nikon, VR does not eliminate camera shake. It reduces it by simply increasing your keepers at slower than handleable.
For example. If I shoot at 1/250sec and I get 8 sharp out of 10 shots, that means that with VR on, I will get approximately the same success ratio slower than 1/250. Depending upon which VR technology you've got on the lens, it will be in between 2 to 4 stops. But it does not change the fact that you will still get dumpers. But more keepers is better than dumpers at slower shutter speeds.
Unfortunately, people tend to assume that simply turning on VR, they can raise the bar and be able to shoot 10 out of 10 all the time and at any time. If you hold this kind of expectation, you will be disappointed.
Rick.
On higher shutter speeds, there's really no reason to use VR. Before the advent of VR, people had been getting great sharp photos without it. So if you're having problems getting sharp photos at 1/250 and higher, then you may want to evaluate your hand holding techniques.
According to what I was told by Nikon, VR does not eliminate camera shake. It reduces it by simply increasing your keepers at slower than handleable.
For example. If I shoot at 1/250sec and I get 8 sharp out of 10 shots, that means that with VR on, I will get approximately the same success ratio slower than 1/250. Depending upon which VR technology you've got on the lens, it will be in between 2 to 4 stops. But it does not change the fact that you will still get dumpers. But more keepers is better than dumpers at slower shutter speeds.
Unfortunately, people tend to assume that simply turning on VR, they can raise the bar and be able to shoot 10 out of 10 all the time and at any time. If you hold this kind of expectation, you will be disappointed.
Rick.
from photozone.de tests
i don't doubt there can be some variation in samples but it looks like the 70-300 should be at least as good at the middle and better at the edges than the 18-70mm
also the 18-70mm has more vignetting
maybe you could share some comparison images for your lenses
David
Those about the shutter speed, the VR use in sports, the filters on the lens, and many other great comments and exemples ... dpreview is still a great source of people who like to speak about technics & image quality, hope it will last like that !
I perfectly understand that the 70-300mm is a consumer lens , but for the price, as I said , I expected a bit more, maybe , too much. I will try it again & again untill I get the best tuning & acceptable results.
I'll try also this AF ON option . I didnt have a manual coming with the brand new lens... strange !
I still dont get how to know if a lens suffers from Front or Back focusing. When I installed my Split Screen on the D40X, I could adjust it by comparing it to an AF lens that I knew it was sharp & didnt front or back focus ( I used simpy the 18-50 mm lens kit coming with it.) Now that my camera was perfectly tuned, I could easily manual focus with a prime .
When I shoot with the 70-300mm , AF is often in the middle of the split screen (Focus seems ok), sometimes, the AF is a little bit false. (0.2mm maybe)
On the results (when the AF is OK) , the focused area is a bit blured, as the rest of the picture, but the pixels look crisper (with some weird effects again...) on the focused area... that's why I came to the conclusion that it was a soft lens at 300mm , even at F8.
I perfectly understand that the 70-300mm is a consumer lens , but for the price, as I said , I expected a bit more, maybe , too much. I will try it again & again untill I get the best tuning & acceptable results.
I'll try also this AF ON option . I didnt have a manual coming with the brand new lens... strange !
I still dont get how to know if a lens suffers from Front or Back focusing. When I installed my Split Screen on the D40X, I could adjust it by comparing it to an AF lens that I knew it was sharp & didnt front or back focus ( I used simpy the 18-50 mm lens kit coming with it.) Now that my camera was perfectly tuned, I could easily manual focus with a prime .
When I shoot with the 70-300mm , AF is often in the middle of the split screen (Focus seems ok), sometimes, the AF is a little bit false. (0.2mm maybe)
On the results (when the AF is OK) , the focused area is a bit blured, as the rest of the picture, but the pixels look crisper (with some weird effects again...) on the focused area... that's why I came to the conclusion that it was a soft lens at 300mm , even at F8.
I have a 70-300VR, mine is not as sharp as a 3000 dollar lens, but sharp enough, even at 300, that some USM can make the shots look great.
Backfocus test
http://focustestchart.com/chart.html
This shot, VR on, handheld 1/15th of a second. Not as sharp as a prime, but this is hand held at 1/15th of a second with no post processing at all except a crop.
300mm, shot in RAW, sharpened in Capture Nx
fdevyatkin - Awesome Heron shot btw
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/
Backfocus test
http://focustestchart.com/chart.html
This shot, VR on, handheld 1/15th of a second. Not as sharp as a prime, but this is hand held at 1/15th of a second with no post processing at all except a crop.
300mm, shot in RAW, sharpened in Capture Nx
fdevyatkin - Awesome Heron shot btw
--
My Photo Album
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7561880@N05/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum