On 2008-04-29 04:49:28 -0700, frederick said:

http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blo...7Nikon70_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.

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?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor