If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
I think I'm going to love using the 18-55 mm Nikkor with VR. I have been
wasting too much time watching NCAA football the last couple of nights, but I did get one comparison page posted. http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/shaky.html I took these two shots of an "night light" at 1/10 second, first on a tripod and then hovering above the tripod, trying to get the same shot hand-held. The VR definitely paid off (it was ON for the handheld shot and turned OFF while on the tripod. The one thing I didn't think to try was the same handheld exposure w/o VR, but I'm pretty sure it would have looked miserable; I know how shaky I am at anything over 1/60 second. Before anyone starts carping about the use of post-processing: I did use my normal noise reduction and sharpening, but the same parameters were used for both images. Illumination was from the lamp (about a 7.5W incandescent) and the very low ambient light in my living room. The lens has the usual codes of "G" and "DX" but I notice no mention of "ED" glass... -- "It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
"Tully" wrote in message
... I think I'm going to love using the 18-55 mm Nikkor with VR. I have been wasting too much time watching NCAA football the last couple of nights, but I did get one comparison page posted. http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/shaky.html I took these two shots of an "night light" at 1/10 second, first on a tripod and then hovering above the tripod, trying to get the same shot hand-held. The VR definitely paid off (it was ON for the handheld shot and turned OFF while on the tripod. The one thing I didn't think to try was the same handheld exposure w/o VR, but I'm pretty sure it would have looked miserable; I know how shaky I am at anything over 1/60 second. Before anyone starts carping about the use of post-processing: I did use my normal noise reduction and sharpening, but the same parameters were used for both images. Illumination was from the lamp (about a 7.5W incandescent) and the very low ambient light in my living room. The lens has the usual codes of "G" and "DX" but I notice no mention of "ED" glass... -- "It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) To me the image on the left looks a lot sharper. Ken Rockwell gave this lens a nice write up http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm -- Peter |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
Peter wrote:
"Tully" wrote in message [] http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/shaky.html [] To me the image on the left looks a lot sharper. To me they look almost the same. Ken Rockwell gave this lens a nice write up http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm Tully is using a newer version of that lens, which now has VR added. Cheers, David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk... Peter wrote: "Tully" wrote in message [] http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/shaky.html [] To me the image on the left looks a lot sharper. To me they look almost the same. Ken Rockwell gave this lens a nice write up http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm Tully is using a newer version of that lens, which now has VR added. Cheers, David VR is quite good, but is not an absolute cure for normal hand shake. It lets you shoot at lower ISO or smaller f stop without a tripod. I have done some experiments with VR and found that while it works reasonably well, at least in my hands the tripod still produces sharper detail. For example, if I am shooting birds with my 80-400, at 400 in daylight, the feathers do not have all the detail they have with a tripod unless I bump the ISO to over 1200. With my 18-200, VRII, I have difficulty seeing the difference in daylight at ISO 100 at f11. But this lens, although a good street lens, is not as sharp. My results will be posted after I set up my web site. -- Peter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
In article ,
"Peter" wrote: "David J Taylor" wrote in message .uk... Peter wrote: "Tully" wrote in message [] http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/shaky.html [] To me the image on the left looks a lot sharper. To me they look almost the same. Ken Rockwell gave this lens a nice write up http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm Tully is using a newer version of that lens, which now has VR added. Cheers, David VR is quite good, but is not an absolute cure for normal hand shake. It lets you shoot at lower ISO or smaller f stop without a tripod. I have done some experiments with VR and found that while it works reasonably well, at least in my hands the tripod still produces sharper detail. For example, if I am shooting birds with my 80-400, at 400 in daylight, the feathers do not have all the detail they have with a tripod unless I bump the ISO to over 1200. With my 18-200, VRII, I have difficulty seeing the difference in daylight at ISO 100 at f11. But this lens, although a good street lens, is not as sharp. My results will be posted after I set up my web site. I considered the 18-200. The (theoretical) advantages of a 'do-everything' zoom are undeniable. My misgivings are based on a firm belief that the longer the range of focal lengths, the more difficult design becomes. At this point--even with the amazing improvements over the last ten years--I doubt anyone can make a 10x zoom that can compete with a 3x or 4x. As for comparing those two lenses, one is a pro lens that retails for USD$1700 while the other is intended for hobbyists and sells for a third as much. I may never own any pro zooms, but I'm getting a big kick out of discovering how good some of the low-priced Nikkors can be. I've been quite pleased with the 24-85, as well as several "D"-type midranges (28-70 was very sharp), and all three versions of the 18-55 'kit' lens I've tried are winners. The first two (ED and ED II) were bought used for ridiculously low prices (and re-sold for a bit more after I had my fun with them). Here's a sample with the early 18-55 (first DX lens I ever used), when I hadn't yet begun to save RAW files: http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...asement-3.html Those experiences led me to jump on the VR version as soon as it became available. If this one becomes the mainstay I expect it to be, it will be worth every penny of the USD$200 price tag. I am intrigued by the lack of 'ED' designation, however. I may write to Nikon and see if there's a story behind this. BTW I know I must seem like a nikon whore, but I've used plenty of other brands over the years, and it;s my opinion that nobody else offers better quality for anywhere near the same price. If I were wealthy (or a pro shooter) maybe I'd be buying Leitz or Zeiss, but I doubt it. Thirty years ago I was making a modest living as a freelance, and I had Nikon glass on everything from a 6x6 Bronica, through an F2, an F and a Nikkormat, to my two enlargers. -- "It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
Peter wrote:
[] I have done some experiments with VR and found that while it works reasonably well, at least in my hands the tripod still produces sharper detail. [] Indeed, were that not the case, something would be wrong with the tripod or technique. Where I find VR helps is when a tripod isn't usable - on the boat, plane or other moving vehicle. Cheers, David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On 2008-01-05, Tully wrote: I considered the 18-200. The (theoretical) advantages of a 'do-everything' zoom are undeniable. My misgivings are based on a firm belief that the longer the range of focal lengths, the more difficult design becomes. At this point--even with the amazing improvements over the last ten years--I doubt anyone can make a 10x zoom that can compete with a 3x or 4x. Your 'firm belief' is anyone else's (except rocket scientist Rockwell and fanboys') knowledge of the compromises necessary in the engineering of any item. -- Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather? - Billy Bragg |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
In article ,
Chris Savage wrote: ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.] On 2008-01-05, Tully wrote: I considered the 18-200. The (theoretical) advantages of a 'do-everything' zoom are undeniable. My misgivings are based on a firm belief that the longer the range of focal lengths, the more difficult design becomes. At this point--even with the amazing improvements over the last ten years--I doubt anyone can make a 10x zoom that can compete with a 3x or 4x. Your 'firm belief' is anyone else's (except rocket scientist Rockwell and fanboys') knowledge of the compromises necessary in the engineering of any item. I guess that _was_ a pretty silly statement. I have no illusions that my opinion equates to astounding insight. The complete thought was along the lines of~ "Given the foregoing, an 18-200 mm zoom which would have IQ that would make me happy would cost far more than I could afford." -- "It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
Tully wrote:
In article , "Peter" wrote: "David J Taylor" wrote in message .uk... Peter wrote: "Tully" wrote in message [] http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iWeb/Site/shaky.html [] To me the image on the left looks a lot sharper. To me they look almost the same. Ken Rockwell gave this lens a nice write up http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm Tully is using a newer version of that lens, which now has VR added. Cheers, David VR is quite good, but is not an absolute cure for normal hand shake. It lets you shoot at lower ISO or smaller f stop without a tripod. I have done some experiments with VR and found that while it works reasonably well, at least in my hands the tripod still produces sharper detail. For example, if I am shooting birds with my 80-400, at 400 in daylight, the feathers do not have all the detail they have with a tripod unless I bump the ISO to over 1200. With my 18-200, VRII, I have difficulty seeing the difference in daylight at ISO 100 at f11. But this lens, although a good street lens, is not as sharp. My results will be posted after I set up my web site. I considered the 18-200. The (theoretical) advantages of a 'do-everything' zoom are undeniable. My misgivings are based on a firm belief that the longer the range of focal lengths, the more difficult design becomes. At this point--even with the amazing improvements over the last ten years--I doubt anyone can make a 10x zoom that can compete with a 3x or 4x. As for comparing those two lenses, one is a pro lens that retails for USD$1700 while the other is intended for hobbyists and sells for a third as much. I may never own any pro zooms, but I'm getting a big kick out of discovering how good some of the low-priced Nikkors can be. I've been quite pleased with the 24-85, as well as several "D"-type midranges (28-70 was very sharp), and all three versions of the 18-55 'kit' lens I've tried are winners. The first two (ED and ED II) were bought used for ridiculously low prices (and re-sold for a bit more after I had my fun with them). Here's a sample with the early 18-55 (first DX lens I ever used), when I hadn't yet begun to save RAW files: http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...asement-3.html Those experiences led me to jump on the VR version as soon as it became available. If this one becomes the mainstay I expect it to be, it will be worth every penny of the USD$200 price tag. I am intrigued by the lack of 'ED' designation, however. I may write to Nikon and see if there's a story behind this. BTW I know I must seem like a nikon whore, but I've used plenty of other brands over the years, and it;s my opinion that nobody else offers better quality for anywhere near the same price. If I were wealthy (or a pro shooter) maybe I'd be buying Leitz or Zeiss, but I doubt it. Thirty years ago I was making a modest living as a freelance, and I had Nikon glass on everything from a 6x6 Bronica, through an F2, an F and a Nikkormat, to my two enlargers. I got my Nikon Coolpix L15 for Christmas for $119, Amazon. It is the first one to offer VR. The ISO range is from 60 to a 1000. I'm reading the literature, and one pro recommended bringing along a second camera as a backup, so I think the L15 would serve this purpose if one can't afford two quality cameras. The other good Nikon researched was the D80. These are my second, third and fourth pictures. I have always been interested in spirals and nautilus seashells. Imagine my surprise when I found over 70 other pictures called Nautilus Fossil on Flickr and over 950 pictures in the Group, Spiral. I was fairly happy with the photos for a beginner, and I don't know if I could have done better on capturing the detail of the fine print or if it was the camera. http://www.flickr.com/photos/2236297...319812/detail/ I'm never gonna run out of things to learn and I fear, purchase. :-) Regards, Stephen |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
VR definitely not just for long lenses
"Tully" wrote in message
... I considered the 18-200. The (theoretical) advantages of a 'do-everything' zoom are undeniable. My misgivings are based on a firm belief that the longer the range of focal lengths, the more difficult design becomes. At this point--even with the amazing improvements over the last ten years--I doubt anyone can make a 10x zoom that can compete with a 3x or 4x. As for comparing those two lenses, one is a pro lens that retails for USD$1700 while the other is intended for hobbyists and sells for a third as much. I picked up the 80s-400 used for $950, US. It's only fault is that the autofocus is extremely slow and practically unsuitable for wildlife or war sports photography. It is excellent for slow-moving objects, including but not limited to, zoo animals. I may never own any pro zooms, but I'm getting a big kick out of discovering how good some of the low-priced Nikkors can be. I've been quite pleased with the 24-85, as well as several "D"-type midranges (28-70 was very sharp), and all three versions of the 18-55 'kit' lens I've tried are winners. The first two (ED and ED II) were bought used for ridiculously low prices (and re-sold for a bit more after I had my fun with them). Here's a sample with the early 18-55 (first DX lens I ever used), when I hadn't yet begun to save RAW files: http://web.mac.com/olddognewtrick/iW...asement-3.html Those experiences led me to jump on the VR version as soon as it became available. If this one becomes the mainstay I expect it to be, it will be worth every penny of the USD$200 price tag. I am intrigued by the lack of 'ED' designation, however. I may write to Nikon and see if there's a story behind this. BTW I know I must seem like a nikon whore, but I've used plenty of other brands over the years, and it;s my opinion that nobody else offers better quality for anywhere near the same price. If I were wealthy (or a pro shooter) maybe I'd be buying Leitz or Zeiss, but I doubt it. Thirty years ago I was making a modest living as a freelance, and I had Nikon glass on everything from a 6x6 Bronica, through an F2, an F and a Nikkormat, to my two enlargers. The main reason I bought a Nikon digital is that I had a slew of decent Nikkor lenses. BTW Your image looks as sharp as any image I could get with my old 200 macro. -- Peter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tamron or Sigma Long Zoom Lenses? | Bill H. | Photographing Nature | 8 | December 3rd 06 01:16 AM |
Internal image stabilization vs long lenses? | Holley | Digital SLR Cameras | 86 | October 31st 06 08:30 AM |
FA: Nikon HS-8 screw-in lenshood fits long lenses which take 52mm filters | [email protected] | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | August 6th 06 04:56 PM |
Considering the Canon 5D, but new to Canon lenses...(long) | Martin Francis | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | September 2nd 05 10:00 PM |
For you LF guys--I've recently acquired some long barrel lenses (400-600mm) ! | Jos. Burke | Large Format Photography Equipment | 2 | November 6th 04 10:49 PM |