A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

VR definitely not just for long lenses



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 5th 08, 02:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Tully
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 04:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 09:20 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
David J Taylor[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,151
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 02:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 04:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Tully
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 05:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,151
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 05:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 07:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tully
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 10:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Stephen Harris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default 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  
Old January 5th 08, 10:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,alt.photography
Peter[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,078
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.