2nd try

On 2014-08-06 05:20:18 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-08-06 04:43:39 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:08:25 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.

The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.

you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr, and
there are four versions of it.

What about this one - does it have VR?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima..._1779-1200.jpg

There are many other designs before the first VR.

This time *nospam* is correct and you have been a tad careless with
your argument. Check your statement above where you refer to the
“original 70-200 f/2.8. Well the original Nikkor 70-200mm f/3.8 was a
VR lens. Nikon never produced a non-stabilized version.

Oops! should read f/2.8, not f/3.8.

What you have shown above is the original 80-200mm f/2.8, not a 70-200
f.2.8, and it certainly doesn't have VR. Even the latest version the
80-200mm f/2.8D ED doesn't have any VR & it is not delivered with a
lens shade, that is a $45 accessory.
,http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-Zoom-Nikkor-80-200mm-f%252F2.8D-ED.html

There
have

been only 2 versions of the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 one with VR and the
latest with VRII
Tamron had a non-stabilized 70-200mm f/2.8.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that
there is, although not much.

PeterN:
The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame
with the original.

Eric Stevens:
Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not
just the original 70-200 f/2.8

nospam:
both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.

you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr,
and there are four versions of it.

What about this one - does it have VR?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima..._1779-1200.jpg

No, and nor is it a 70-200mm/f2.8 either.


--
Sandman[.net]

rOn Wed, 06 Aug 2014 00:56:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.

The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.

you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr, and
there are four versions of it.

What about this one - does it have VR?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima..._1779-1200.jpg

stop linking to liars.

and no, it doesn't.

*none* of the 80-200 lenses have vr of any kind, especially a manual
focus ai lens that predates vr by a decade or so.

There are many other designs before the first VR.

not for the 70-200 there aren't. *all* versions of the 70-200 have vr.

there are 4 versions of the 80-200 (and an earlier manual focus version
for 5), none of which have vr. one had afs though.

it's a different lens. you can tell it's different because 80 != 70.

Yep. I acknowledged my mistake almost immediately, even though it may
have appeared some distance down in the thread.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article 2014080313352695711-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Peter is on a quest for the magnificent accident shot

What a great term, Savageduck!

I would love to see some of those kind of shots from other users.

Here's mine:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_8893ff.jpg

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On 2014-08-06 20:11:04 +0000, M-M said:

In article 2014080313352695711-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Peter is on a quest for the magnificent accident shot

What a great term, Savageduck!

I would love to see some of those kind of shots from other users.

Here's mine:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_8893ff.jpg

Nice capture!
When did you know you had the fish in the dolphin shot?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 6 Aug 2014 02:58:16 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 05:43:39 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:08:25 -0400, nospam

wrote:



In article , Eric Stevens

wrote:



"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image

stabilization."



I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,

although not much.



The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the

original.



Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the

original 70-200 f/2.8



both versions of the 70-200 f/2.8 have vr.



you may be thinking of the 80-200 f/2.8 which does not have vr, and

there are four versions of it.



What about this one - does it have VR?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/ima..._1779-1200.jpg



There are many other designs before the first VR.



I must remember that VR doesn;t stand for Virtual Reality in this NG or does it ;-)

Victoria Regina?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article 2014080613442291990-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-06 20:11:04 +0000, M-M said:

In article 2014080313352695711-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Peter is on a quest for the magnificent accident shot

What a great term, Savageduck!

I would love to see some of those kind of shots from other users.

Here's mine:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/DSC_8893ff.jpg

Nice capture!
When did you know you had the fish in the dolphin shot?

Only after reviewing the playback. Those around me on the beach did not
see it happen. I did see something dark in the viewfinder but it was
too quick.

As you say, a "magnificent accident shot"

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On 8/5/2014 11:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Sandman:
If you use VR, you can lower the shutter speed somewhat if needed,
but in this case it wasn't. Set your aperture to f4 if you fear
that not enough of the subject will be in focus, and your shutter
speed to 1/200 at 200mm.

As Ken Rockwell said: "If you can't get sharp photos with this
lens, you are a sad excuse for a photographer."

When I get a chance I am going to see if there is a hardware issue.
Very few take Ken Rockwell literally.

Very true, but sometimes he gets some things right. Probably by accident

Sandman:
His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and there is no
reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't be needle sharp.

Footnote: The VR II of the 70-200 claims four stops of
improvement, but that's in ideal conditions, and I'm assuming here
that Peter may be a bit shakey to begin with, so I stand by the
shutter speed of 1/focal length in spite of the VR II.

A little more than I used to be. VR should not be the issue because
I used strobe with this set. I did not with the original, and
someone was kind enough to point out that the blur looked ike motion
blur. I suspect the real issue was shooting through a greenish glass
window, and light scatter caused by small scratches in the glass.

Ah, there's your problem then. No flashes when shooting through glass.


Almost. One of my friends was standing next to me and shooting with
flash. He had no issue. The difference:
He was using a better Veamer, and his flash was mounted much closer to
the glass. I suspect that light scatter was the issue.





--
PeterN

On 8/5/2014 11:57 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

His words, not mine. This is an *awesome* lens and
there is no reason what so ever that these picture shouldn't
be needle sharp.

Eric Stevens:
I have the f/2.8 VR and from my experience,
tests and what have read, it is sharper at the shorter focal
length. I've never tried it with a teleconverter.

nospam:
it's pretty good but any teleconverter will have an impact on
quality.

Sandman:
There is a place for a TC, but Peter's images rarely is that.
Since he is shooting with a D800, there is no reason to go from
200mm to 220mm using a TC.

The 1.7 goes from 200 to 340

Yes, but one of the images was shot at 220mm, so the TC was wholly
unneccessary.


For that shot. for thoers in that day, it was necessary.

--
PeterN

On 8/5/2014 10:00 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014 08:34:46 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 8/3/2014 7:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:32:54 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

That's from the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II. It's not clear from
PeterN's EXIF whether his f/2.8 VR or VR II.

Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image stabilization.

I've never thought to look at DxO before. The results are interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/mh2cro2
The newer lens is slightly sharper and better in both other respects
as well, but the differences are so small that most people would be
hard pressed to notice them. You would get bigger variations from
processing.

that's what i said originally.

I wasn't disagreeing with you. It's just that Sandman said:

"Both are equally sharp, the VR II just has better image
stabilization."

I thought there was to it than that and DxO confirmed that there is,
although not much.


The major difference is the edges are softer on a full frame with the
original.

Yes - providing you mean the original 70-200 f/2.8 VR and not just the
original 70-200 f/2.8

Yup! I was talking about the VR compared to the VRII.


--
PeterN