new Nikkor 200-400 f4 vrII lens

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Tim Conway, Apr 28, 2010.

  1. Tim Conway

    Tim Conway Guest

    Tim Conway, Apr 28, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tim Conway

    Peter Guest


    Try the new 2.8 70-200 with the new aspherical 2x extender. Yes I know it's
    f5.6 and not f4, but the price and weight difference may be worth it.

    But, yup! I like that lens.
     
    Peter, Apr 28, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Name _one_ superzoom with an aperture of 150mm (f/4 at 200mm x3) diameter.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Apr 28, 2010
    #3
  4. Tim Conway

    Tim Conway Guest

    Definitely more affordable solution. I'll keep it in mind. Thanks
     
    Tim Conway, Apr 28, 2010
    #4
  5. Tim Conway

    Tim Conway Guest

    yeah, always entertaining LOL
     
    Tim Conway, Apr 28, 2010
    #5
  6. So now, superzooms don't have a large aperture. Instead you now claim that
    they don't need it because of their small sensors.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Apr 28, 2010
    #6
  7. Tim Conway

    Russ D Guest

    They have larger f/ratios available at long focal-lengths. They don't need
    larger apertures at long focal-lengths because they use smaller sensors.

    We shall all await for that one remaining functioning neuron in your
    gray-matter to locate a neighboring functioning neuron.

    We won't hold our breath while waiting. It appears to be the sole survivor.
     
    Russ D, Apr 28, 2010
    #7
  8. That's just a repetition of your last claim. And saying that small sensors
    compensate for small apertures is the worst lie you've posted in weeks.
    Come on, I'm sure even you can be more convincing than that.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Apr 28, 2010
    #8
  9. You must be one of them, considering your previous statement.

    "Luckily too, that smaller sensor cameras are often
    combined with contrast-focusing methods, instead of phase-detection
    methods. This ensures that all your images are in perfect focus, instead of
    using the faster but hit and miss methods employed on DSLRs. I'd rather
    walk away with 100 perfectly focused images for 100 shots, rather than 10
    out of 1000."
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Apr 28, 2010
    #9
  10. Ofcourse. And PD can be safely depended on when I choose to use it.
    LOL

    You're the one who keeps changing his nick to escape killfilters. Wouldn't
    I do that if I was as desperate as you are?
     
    Robert Spanjaard, Apr 28, 2010
    #10
  11. Ah, do post an example with EXIF info, please!

    The benefit from
    Ever shot sports at night??
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 29, 2010
    #11
  12. Tim Conway

    me Guest

    Definitely a "different" solution. I can't speak to the new versions,
    however I can speak to the originals. I've shot the orginal 70-200mm
    f/2.8 VR + TC-20EII on a D70/D200?D300 for quite a few years. I've now
    also had the orignal 200-400 f/4 VR for several years. Totally
    different worlds and one does get what one pays for. Each has its own
    set of limitations. The 70-200+TC-20 is cheaper, and lighter. It does
    not give the same sharpness on small subjects at range as the 200-400.
    So how valuable the combo might be to you depends not only on, size,
    wt, $$, but maybe also your intended subject. Panning shots of auto/MC
    racers taken with both and compared where shutter speeds where kept
    around ~1/320 s showed aproximately the same sharpness. The bigger
    lens is definitely a lot more difficult to pan, especially if not
    given an easy subject/point to pick up. The combo is much easier to
    get up to panning speed. The combo is slower focusing than the big
    lens. The big lens gives you a shorter focal length range and
    definitely a closer focusing distance.

    All that said, now having both, the 200-400mm pretty much lives mated
    to a TC-14 and the 70-200 gets used by itself of mated to the 1.4x
    also. In good light I will mate the 2x to the big lens. Despite what
    Nikon publishes the D70/200/300 will try to autofocus the 200-400 f/4
    + TC-20 F/8 combo and in bright light the resulting image is stll
    outstanding.

    http://edwardgruf.com/bluebird.html
     
    me, Apr 29, 2010
    #12
  13. Tim Conway

    Tim Conway Guest

    Nice
     
    Tim Conway, Apr 29, 2010
    #13
  14. Tim Conway

    Paul Furman Guest

    Right, because they don't capture much light and can only make small prints.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 29, 2010
    #14
  15. Tim Conway

    Peter Guest


    Nice shots.
    Have you tested the 70-200 with the new aspherical 2x? Of course you cannot
    get the same result as with the 200-400 with any extender.
     
    Peter, Apr 29, 2010
    #15
  16. Tim Conway

    me Guest

    If someone were to loan me one for a weekend I'd give it a go.
    Otherwise I'm lacking motivation to do so.
     
    me, Apr 30, 2010
    #16
  17. []
    In a way, site size (for a given sensor area) /shouldn't/ matter (purely
    for signal-to-noise ratio) as the total number of photons collected is
    constant, but of course a single large pixel wouldn't produce an
    interesting image. So it's the old trade-off between resolution and
    noise, half the site linear dimension, a quarter of the area, a quarter of
    the signal per site, half the signal-to-noise ratio (photon limited), four
    times the number of pixels, and then the integration effects in the eye
    when an image or print is viewed at "normal" viewing distance (rather than
    pixel peeping). Smaller photo-sites /may/ also be less efficient at
    collecting the available photons, as the non-sensitive part of the
    structure may occupy a greater fraction of the photo-site area.

    See what resolution (and implied signal-to-noise ratio) best matches your
    particular subject.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 30, 2010
    #17
  18. []
    Thanks for that clarification.
    Indeed, that's a helpful move to improve the quantum efficiency of those
    sensors. Perhaps the larger-pixel sensors would benefit less because of
    micro-lenses making the light collection more efficient?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, May 1, 2010
    #18
  19. Indeed. And there are other disadvantages:

    http://www.i-micronews.com/lectureArticle.asp?id=1607
    "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures, backside-
    illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark
    current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image degradation
    and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 1, 2010
    #19
  20. Not at all. Sony themselves say that they won't use BSI-technology for
    larger sensors, because there are no benefits.
    For small sensors the advantages (larger illuminated area) outweigh the
    disadvantages. For larger sensors, they don't.
     
    Robert Spanjaard, May 1, 2010
    #20
    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.