70-200VR performance on Fx

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by frederick, Apr 29, 2008.

  1. frederick

    frederick Guest

    http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html#20080417Nikon70_200VR

    Seems the beloved (on Dx) and expensive 70-200VR is a casualty. Many
    posts on DPReview about this - many in denial mode ("it's a PJ lens - so
    what if the corners aren't sharp?" etc).

    "The problem is so severe that stopping down to f/8 or f/11 (or even
    f/16) is insufficient to overcome it; it appears that the 70-200VR
    simply cannot “cover” the 36 X 24mm frame adequately."

    Bjorn Rorslett has "downgraded" the lens on FX - but not far enough if
    that performance is typical, as it seems it may be.

    Nikon did warn that Dx had some advantages.
     
    frederick, Apr 29, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. frederick

    C J Campbell Guest

    This has always been known, though. Digital shooters who have been
    crying for 'full-frame' cameras had all forgotten about the problems of
    film and the 35mm format. Or they had never known them in the first
    place.

    With DX you get the 'sweet spot' of every lens. Go to 35mm (FX) and all
    the old issues that used to fill photography magazines come creeping
    back like Freddy (he never goes away, does he): vignetting, corner
    sharpness, edge distortion, etc.

    In the old days pros tended to shoot with the idea of cropping off the
    underperforming edges of the frame. All the old film guys who are now
    whining about how their wide angles are not as wide on DX are
    conveniently forgetting about this. When they were shooting film, most
    of them were really using a DX or APSC format anyway.

    And all the guys who never knew anything but digital are getting a rude
    awakening. That image circle gets soft at the edges. Who'd a-thunk?
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 29, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. frederick

    frederick Guest

    I have to admit that I feel a bit smug about this one. Fx was supposed
    to be about image quality - wasn't it?
    If I had a D3, then for what I use my camera for, a 70-200 would be the
    lens I'd probably want to use most. I've seen enough samples now to
    show that an "inferior" crop sensor camera, even with an "amateur" lens,
    would whup a D3&70-200 at the long end.
    It's also notable that while Canon doesn't have a match for the Nikkor
    14-24, their 4 choices of 70-200 (IS/non IS, f2.8 and f4) are apparently
    all excellent on FF, and 3 of them cost less than an inferior 70-200VR.
     
    frederick, Apr 29, 2008
    #3
  4. frederick

    C J Campbell Guest

    Indeed. I think this is why a lot of people are expecting an update of
    the 70-200 Nikkor to be announced along with the D90 in May or June
    and, if not then, when the D3X is announced, probably in August. The
    70-200mm VR is in need of an update -- sharper edge performance, VR II,
    and some minor improvements.

    Still, if you are using it on DX lenses, it is one of the sharpest
    zooms Nikon makes.
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 30, 2008
    #4
  5. frederick

    RichA Guest

    Why would anyone willingly go FF for telephoto work? Yes, it would be
    nice to be able to fill the frame of an FX camera with the image, but
    it's unrealistic, depending on your subject, unless you want to invest
    in massive telelphotos or give up speed to keep the weight down.
     
    RichA, May 1, 2008
    #5
  6. frederick

    frederick Guest

    I don't really consider a 70-200 on Fx a "long" lens. I guess I've
    gotten used to APS-C, so for me on FX the lens would "become a 50-135"
    or so, and I'd want a good 300mm lens as well as a minimum. (My present
    kit of UWA zoom, light normal zoom, tele zoom, & macro lens in a
    backpack really is the maximum I want to carry)
    OTOH, 24mp Fx cameras look like becoming the norm soon, and I presume an
    APS-c sized crop from those would suit most people's needs - but of
    course probably not their "wants". (I don't exclude myself from that
    either - 24mp Fx could be very nice to have)
    High mp FX is going to be a huge $$ generator for camera companies. Dx
    is already being used well beyond what 35mm was ever used for by most
    photographers in terms of expectation for print size (or more commonly
    pixel peeping on screen - and "cock-off" measurebating banter in forum
    discussion), and I expect 24mp Fx is going to bring on rashes of lens
    lust of unprecedented silliness.
     
    frederick, May 1, 2008
    #6
  7. Why not? I think it breaks every terrestrial and celestial boundary of
    stupidity using APS-C or APS-H when FF is giving you a much better image.
    It's easier than you think to fill the frame with FX; I do it all the time.
    You wouldn't happen to be from the backwoods of Tennessee where all the
    inbreeds crop everything from their digital images to their testicles.
    Here's a filled frame FX shot handheld at 1,000mm. Yes, no cropping
    whatsoever and the large print made from it look much better than the
    reduced for web image.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/whisper.htm




    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 2, 2008
    #7
  8. frederick

    RichA Guest

    I'd be curious to see images from a 300mm f2.8+2x converter and the
    D300 at 600 ISO compared to it.
    And there is the weight issue as well. But if you can do it with the
    D3, do it.
     
    RichA, May 2, 2008
    #8
  9. frederick

    frederick Guest

    Don't you have cheap coolie labour available where you live?
    I actually guess that Rita shot that at a zoo, but that might be a
    little unfair of me.
     
    frederick, May 2, 2008
    #9
  10. That's just it; I'm doing it as well as many others. There's nothing wrong
    with zooming with your feet to get the shot you want. Just the IQ from the
    D3's high-ISO performance blows the D300 out of the water. The D300 is a
    great camera, but it doesn't have the high-ISO performance and IQ of the D3
    because of sensor design and size. Even cropping the D3's sensor still
    yields great results. It just doesn't make any sense buying long lenses and
    throwing away 1/3 of the image, at least to people that live outside of
    Tennessee. Any cropping of an image taken on a cropped sensor is even more
    foolish. As for weight, not a problem.





    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 2, 2008
    #10
  11. Actually that was taken in my yard. Nothing beats having wooded acreage and
    being next to the water.




    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 2, 2008
    #11
  12. frederick

    RichA Guest

    Nothing at all, it should be the norm. When it's possible.
     
    RichA, May 2, 2008
    #12
  13. It is the norm. No matter what lens you have on your camera or if you are
    using FX or DX it will always be a crap shoot on whether or not that is the
    right focal length for the task at hand. That's why zooming with your feet
    is paramount instead of looking for excuses if DX or FX would be better than
    the other.




    Rita
    --
    Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    Stimulus Project page.

    http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
     
    Rita Berkowitz, May 3, 2008
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.