Reading mode: Light Dark

I've about had it with Nikon's VR

Go to last post
M

michaeladawson

Forum Pro
Messages
21,353
Solutions
16
Reaction score
22,962
Location
West Bath, ME, US
I don't examine many photos from other brands. So I don't know if they do the same thing. But I am coming close to throwing in the towel on Nikon's VR. This has been going on for many years. I'm talking about Nikon's nervous double and triple ghosting of background elements.

Here's my latest example of this. Shot with the Z8 and 800mm f/6.3. VR is in sport mode. The Z8 is on a monopod. This is a crop to turn this from the original landscape to a portrait orientation. Otherwise it's close to full size.

That long stripe of mangled VR work on the left size mostly relegates this photo to the garbage heap. There's other spots in the photo where Nikon's VR work is evident.

I am just getting tired of just about all telephoto shots that have grasses or reeds exhibiting these VR artifacts.



481c20c0a1bb4b9f92fc19a5576cb35c.jpg



--
Mike Dawson
 
I'm wondering if this is a PF lens thing. I don't own any PF lenses, but I've seen others complain about a similar issue. I've never seen this with any of my Nikon telephoto lenses, but they are not PF.
 
So find shots without grass between you and your subject? Or turn off vr if you're on a monopod?

The second is much easier a lot of the time.
 
michaeladawson said:
I don't examine many photos from other brands. So I don't know if they do the same thing. But I am coming close to throwing in the towel on Nikon's VR. This has been going on for many years. I'm talking about Nikon's nervous double and triple ghosting of background elements.

Here's my latest example of this. Shot with the Z8 and 800mm f/6.3. VR is in sport mode. The Z8 is on a monopod. This is a crop to turn this from the original landscape to a portrait orientation. Otherwise it's close to full size.

That long stripe of mangled VR work on the left size mostly relegates this photo to the garbage heap. There's other spots in the photo where Nikon's VR work is evident.

I am just getting tired of just about all telephoto shots that have grasses or reeds exhibiting these VR artifacts.

481c20c0a1bb4b9f92fc19a5576cb35c.jpg
Click to expand...
I believe you've seen my double-line artifacts photos in another post, so I share your pain. Likewise, I've decided to use Sport Mode VR only when doing BIF shots with either clear sky background or background far away. here's another type of busy bokeh that I'm hoping will clear up with no VR...

600 Z PF on Z8. Busy background is really distracting. Aperture is already wide open at f6.3. I'd love to try a Z 400f2.8 wide open - I just don't want to carry it miles on a mountain trail - and cost is also a factor, of course.
600 Z PF on Z8. Busy background is really distracting. Aperture is already wide open at f6.3. I'd love to try a Z 400f2.8 wide open - I just don't want to carry it miles on a mountain trail - and cost is also a factor, of course.

If the background is far enough away and without sharp-edged leaves, VR Sport seems to be okay. I don't suppose my local camera store has a Z 400f/2.8 TC for rent....?
If the background is far enough away and without sharp-edged leaves, VR Sport seems to be okay. I don't suppose my local camera store has a Z 400f/2.8 TC for rent....?

I would really like to see someone post two shots shot back-to-back one with - and one without VR Sport engaged that definitively shows VR as a contributor to the busy bokeh.
 
I'm really struggling with the same thing- especially using the Z8 with the 100-400mm S lens - I've not noticed it as much with my older DSLRs...
 
TheSoaringSprite said:
I'm wondering if this is a PF lens thing. I don't own any PF lenses, but I've seen others complain about a similar issue. I've never seen this with any of my Nikon telephoto lenses, but they are not PF.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is limited to PF lenses - I've got an example shot with my old f-mount 500mmf/4 VR AF-S that shows the same busy double-line bokeh. I believe I've seen the same with the 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens on a D810/D500 as well. Also the same experience with my Z 400 f/4.5... I've got to say that my "awareness" of these types of busy bokehs has been growing over the last 5-10 years.
 
Roy Kikuta said:
TheSoaringSprite said:
I'm wondering if this is a PF lens thing. I don't own any PF lenses, but I've seen others complain about a similar issue. I've never seen this with any of my Nikon telephoto lenses, but they are not PF.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is limited to PF lenses - I've got an example shot with my old f-mount 500mmf/4 VR AF-S that shows the same busy double-line bokeh. I believe I've seen the same with the 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens on a D810/D500 as well. Also the same experience with my Z 400 f/4.5... I've got to say that my "awareness" of these types of busy bokehs has been growing over the last 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
I respect others experience and opinions but I have hundreds of photos with the 400 f4.5 I could post and none of them, even with the TC1.4, show terrible bokeh like this.



Show me yours and I’ll show you mine. lol. :)
 
michaeladawson said:
I don't examine many photos from other brands. So I don't know if they do the same thing. But I am coming close to throwing in the towel on Nikon's VR. This has been going on for many years. I'm talking about Nikon's nervous double and triple ghosting of background elements.

Here's my latest example of this. Shot with the Z8 and 800mm f/6.3. VR is in sport mode. The Z8 is on a monopod. This is a crop to turn this from the original landscape to a portrait orientation. Otherwise it's close to full size.

That long stripe of mangled VR work on the left size mostly relegates this photo to the garbage heap. There's other spots in the photo where Nikon's VR work is evident.

I am just getting tired of just about all telephoto shots that have grasses or reeds exhibiting these VR artifacts.

481c20c0a1bb4b9f92fc19a5576cb35c.jpg
Click to expand...


Not sure this has anything to do with VR. Z mount VR is amazing!

Looks like you shot a twig in the foreground without noticing. Also, any lens will give you nervous bokeh if your put a busy background close behind your subject. The Z mount PF's are not particularly more prone to it than any other lenses, maybe a fraction. I replaced an older 600/4 with the 800/6.3 and don't see a lot of difference regarding nervous bokeh.

Just consider your BG in every shot and get lower!
 
Roy Kikuta said:
TheSoaringSprite said:
I'm wondering if this is a PF lens thing. I don't own any PF lenses, but I've seen others complain about a similar issue. I've never seen this with any of my Nikon telephoto lenses, but they are not PF.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is limited to PF lenses - I've got an example shot with my old f-mount 500mmf/4 VR AF-S that shows the same busy double-line bokeh. I believe I've seen the same with the 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens on a D810/D500 as well. Also the same experience with my Z 400 f/4.5... I've got to say that my "awareness" of these types of busy bokehs has been growing over the last 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
The reality is that you need to have an awareness of your BG when using a long lens. Put a busy, messy BG close behind your subject when shooting with a long lens, you will get jangly bokeh, regardless of lens.

Consideration of the BG is an important aspect of long lens technique and a low shooting position is often a solution.
 
I think the issue illustrated is not directly VR related.

I only get it occasionally - with what I would describe as a a messy background.

If the background looks OK through the viewfinder I do not get your problem.



Redpoll - with VR - obtaining an OK background
Redpoll - with VR - obtaining an OK background



--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is similar to learning to play a piano - it takes practice to develop skill in either activity.
 
I would put it down to the PF lenses not the VR, I was never happy with the D850/500PF background rendering and testing the with Z9 showed similar unpleasant background rendering in too many situations, tack sharp for sure but...

I did find the rendering of the 180-600 seemed to be overall much more pleasant in brief use so you might want to try that in similar circumstances to see if the background is improved and at least eliminate VR.

I doubt it is VR given the high shutter speeds used below and the tack sharp subjects.

2b4fb73f3e0f41cfa475b1171456d731.jpg



43909c3bc11541688ac595c23c163e56.jpg
 
Turn it off.
 
Rodenmg said:
Roy Kikuta said:
TheSoaringSprite said:
I'm wondering if this is a PF lens thing. I don't own any PF lenses, but I've seen others complain about a similar issue. I've never seen this with any of my Nikon telephoto lenses, but they are not PF.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is limited to PF lenses - I've got an example shot with my old f-mount 500mmf/4 VR AF-S that shows the same busy double-line bokeh. I believe I've seen the same with the 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens on a D810/D500 as well. Also the same experience with my Z 400 f/4.5... I've got to say that my "awareness" of these types of busy bokehs has been growing over the last 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
I respect others experience and opinions but I have hundreds of photos with the 400 f4.5 I could post and none of them, even with the TC1.4, show terrible bokeh like this.

Show me yours and I’ll show you mine. lol. :)
Click to expand...
You and me both. I've never seen anything like this with the 400 4.5 either, or the 70-200 if that counts as long enough. And I keep my VR on sport mode almost always.
 
Rodenmg said:
Roy Kikuta said:
TheSoaringSprite said:
I'm wondering if this is a PF lens thing. I don't own any PF lenses, but I've seen others complain about a similar issue. I've never seen this with any of my Nikon telephoto lenses, but they are not PF.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is limited to PF lenses - I've got an example shot with my old f-mount 500mmf/4 VR AF-S that shows the same busy double-line bokeh. I believe I've seen the same with the 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens on a D810/D500 as well. Also the same experience with my Z 400 f/4.5... I've got to say that my "awareness" of these types of busy bokehs has been growing over the last 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
I respect others experience and opinions but I have hundreds of photos with the 400 f4.5 I could post and none of them, even with the TC1.4, show terrible bokeh like this.

Show me yours and I’ll show you mine. lol. :)
Click to expand...
The following are examples of the double-line bokeh taken with the Z 400 f/4.5. They're not artistic nor technically good - just examples I could find quickly.

9ce0bc978b034241b20054e6eaf86e1b.jpg

8170b069c12846f79d6eb6a41711155f.jpg

4d5948d1a87e41ceb5a565cd7b110207.jpg

Images above were all taken with the Z 400 f/4.5, mostly on a Z9. Some busy bokehs are obvious, others you may need to examine under more magnification. Your shooting experience and situation are undoubtedly different than mine - but this is my experience... the busy bokeh seems to affect many long lenses, PF or otherwise, and includes the Z 400 f/4.5.

[Edit: I had to edit out one photo - it was not shot with the 400f4.5.]
 

Attachments

  • 518aa6badc464e59ae1ffc39e6347933.jpg
    518aa6badc464e59ae1ffc39e6347933.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
By chance did you turn VR off and shoot another frame? I'm curious whether this is a lens artifact or the VR.

I haven't looked close enough at my images, or noticed what I felt were VR artifacts. It just has never occurred to me that "VR artifacts" is a thing.
 
Roy Kikuta said:
Rodenmg said:
Roy Kikuta said:
TheSoaringSprite said:
I'm wondering if this is a PF lens thing. I don't own any PF lenses, but I've seen others complain about a similar issue. I've never seen this with any of my Nikon telephoto lenses, but they are not PF.
Click to expand...
I don't believe this is limited to PF lenses - I've got an example shot with my old f-mount 500mmf/4 VR AF-S that shows the same busy double-line bokeh. I believe I've seen the same with the 200-500 f/5.6 VR lens on a D810/D500 as well. Also the same experience with my Z 400 f/4.5... I've got to say that my "awareness" of these types of busy bokehs has been growing over the last 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
I respect others experience and opinions but I have hundreds of photos with the 400 f4.5 I could post and none of them, even with the TC1.4, show terrible bokeh like this.

Show me yours and I’ll show you mine. lol. :)
Click to expand...
The following are examples of the double-line bokeh taken with the Z 400 f/4.5. They're not artistic nor technically good - just examples I could find quickly.

9ce0bc978b034241b20054e6eaf86e1b.jpg

8170b069c12846f79d6eb6a41711155f.jpg

4d5948d1a87e41ceb5a565cd7b110207.jpg

Images above were all taken with the Z 400 f/4.5, mostly on a Z9. Some busy bokehs are obvious, others you may need to examine under more magnification. Your shooting experience and situation are undoubtedly different than mine - but this is my experience... the busy bokeh seems to affect many long lenses, PF or otherwise, and includes the Z 400 f/4.5.

[Edit: I had to edit out one photo - it was not shot with the 400f4.5.]
Click to expand...
I've gotten ugly artifacts like that due to atmospherics on a few lenses. I don't have any off hand (I'd need to dig through my archive later), but I haven't seen any issues like it on good days.
 
Roy Kikuta said:
michaeladawson said:
I don't examine many photos from other brands. So I don't know if they do the same thing. But I am coming close to throwing in the towel on Nikon's VR. This has been going on for many years. I'm talking about Nikon's nervous double and triple ghosting of background elements.

Here's my latest example of this. Shot with the Z8 and 800mm f/6.3. VR is in sport mode. The Z8 is on a monopod. This is a crop to turn this from the original landscape to a portrait orientation. Otherwise it's close to full size.

That long stripe of mangled VR work on the left size mostly relegates this photo to the garbage heap. There's other spots in the photo where Nikon's VR work is evident.

I am just getting tired of just about all telephoto shots that have grasses or reeds exhibiting these VR artifacts.

481c20c0a1bb4b9f92fc19a5576cb35c.jpg
Click to expand...
I believe you've seen my double-line artifacts photos in another post, so I share your pain. Likewise, I've decided to use Sport Mode VR only when doing BIF shots with either clear sky background or background far away. here's another type of busy bokeh that I'm hoping will clear up with no VR...

600 Z PF on Z8. Busy background is really distracting. Aperture is already wide open at f6.3. I'd love to try a Z 400f2.8 wide open - I just don't want to carry it miles on a mountain trail - and cost is also a factor, of course.
600 Z PF on Z8. Busy background is really distracting. Aperture is already wide open at f6.3. I'd love to try a Z 400f2.8 wide open - I just don't want to carry it miles on a mountain trail - and cost is also a factor, of course.

If the background is far enough away and without sharp-edged leaves, VR Sport seems to be okay. I don't suppose my local camera store has a Z 400f/2.8 TC for rent....?
If the background is far enough away and without sharp-edged leaves, VR Sport seems to be okay. I don't suppose my local camera store has a Z 400f/2.8 TC for rent....?

I would really like to see someone post two shots shot back-to-back one with - and one without VR Sport engaged that definitively shows VR as a contributor to the busy bokeh.
Click to expand...
With respect, if your shutter is at 1/4000... do you need VR at all (outside of stabilizing the image through the EVF)?

--
IG: mikeblack_pw
 
duncang said:
I would put it down to the PF lenses not the VR, I was never happy with the D850/500PF background rendering and testing the with Z9 showed similar unpleasant background rendering in too many situations, tack sharp for sure but...
I did find the rendering of the 180-600 seemed to be overall much more pleasant in brief use so you might want to try that in similar circumstances to see if the background is improved and at least eliminate VR.
I doubt it is VR given the high shutter speeds used below and the tack sharp subjects.

2b4fb73f3e0f41cfa475b1171456d731.jpg

43909c3bc11541688ac595c23c163e56.jpg
Click to expand...
The world moves on. The Z mount PF lenses render beautifully. There are little to no optical compromises with modern Z mount PF lenses. Of course the uber f2.8 and f4 lenses are better, but they are better than everything. In fact the 800mm PF is one of the most beautifully rendering lenses I have owned. Even good for cat photos.

53663665874_d173f84b61_o.jpg


53525979914_b04d1fb8fd_o.jpg


53663665954_6cb1f5ac43_o.jpg


53663310056_d10166fc09_o.jpg




53610017944_1041603bfa_o.jpg




53259432430_c66c1cba63_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheSoaringSprite
  • User review User review
Exactly the Lens I Wanted & Needed - Nikkor Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S
2
Replies
31
Views
438
TheSoaringSprite
TheSoaringSprite
R
2025 - I still want a Z80. Here's why...
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
1K
chambeshi
C
TheSoaringSprite
  • Photo Photo
I think this lens and I will be very good friends. :-)
Replies
10
Views
45
TheSoaringSprite
TheSoaringSprite
Stockholmed-in-BadMusic
Panasonic Lumix S5II vs Nikon Z5II + L-mount vs Z-mount
Replies
14
Views
2K
RBIV
RBIV
K
Nikon Z(x), GH6, or R5C?
Replies
12
Views
142
kayasaman
K

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top