[Old Pa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is quite true, but I don't see how it relates to the 70-200 vs. 80-200 debate. VR is meant to gain F-Stops by decreasing shutter speed, and a tripod will only be useful (with a moving subject) so long as there remains enough light to maintain high-shutter speeds.

Please note that the primary focus of my original post, which you did not quote, was my own experience and satisfaction with the Nikkor 70-200/f 2.8 VR lense. I don't believe any other comments in response to Nick's question evidence any such experience. Only later did I try to present the telephoto shutter rule of thumb.

VR reduces "shake" motion, one of two causes of lack of image sharpness (the other being focus). Shake motion is literally magnified by lense length. The extra stops gained by the 70-200/f 2.8 optically and by VR can be used however the photographer elects in creating the image. Good braced hand holding, monopods and tripods are never used enough for their benefits to image sharpness and quality. And neither, in this day of automatic exposure and zoom lenses, is proper awareness of lense length and shutter speed. The VR and optical brightness just make for a lense more tolerant of the photographer's oversights. VR or no, it's always relevant.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nickknutson /img/forum/go_quote.gif One of my thoughts is that people were able to take great photographs without VR for 50+ years...and without it, maybe it will make me learn my craft better and not have to rely on technology.

It's not a contest to see how stripped down and "manual" you can shoot. VR technology doesn't make you lazy. It makes it possible to capture shots quickly that would have required setting up a tripod in the old days. I've still got my old F3. I could go back to old school technology if I wanted. The dust on the camera bag tells how much I want to.

See ya
Steve

 

[ozz]

I was told its about the moment having the right equipment to capture
it no matter how auto it is.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

It's not a contest to see how stripped down and "manual" you can shoot. VR technology doesn't make you lazy. It makes it possible to capture shots quickly that would have required setting up a tripod in the old days. I've still got my old F3. I could go back to old school technology if I wanted. The dust on the camera bag tells how much I want to.

That's true, but you've obviously learned the "harder" way, already. Someone just starting out and gets used to creating some good shots by relying on all the auto functions may never bother to learn the basics .... which are still important if you want to excel. I've found that technology can ( not always of course ) make people, including myself, lazy. Yes, it can speed up the process, and sometimes even save the day by giving acceptable/good/excellent results quicker with less effort, but I've found that things like autofocus and autoexposure for example, can make you lazy and sloppy at times....because you might feel you're covered by technology and therefore don't even have to think at all about focus or exposure....just shoot like mad and see what happens. Next thing you know, you're relying on auto-everything and you've turned into a rapid point and shooter and forget about the subtlties that create above average photographs...photographs where the photographer knows in advance what he's trying to achieve and technically knows how to achieve it. I realize the argument is that these auto functions free up your time to concentrate on other things like framing the shot, but if they lull you into forgetting about lighting, depth of field, and even taking the time to brace the camera and softly hit the shutter (who needs to, I've got VR) ... chances are you'll get lazy on the other things as well.

When I used to shoot weddings outside for example, a tripod wasn't necessary. Not using one would have saved lugging it around, and the time it took to set it up. On the other hand however, by slowing me down a little, it gave me more time to think about the shot, and it allowed me to frame the shot(s) properly, level, and consistantly each time. I could look away and even walk away from the viewfinder, scan the scene with both eyes for posing, distracting background and foreground objects, give the subjects directions, bracket the shot, etc., as often as required without having to re-compose and re-focus the shot each time. Again, I agree that being able to stretch that exposure with VR without having to use a tripod can definitely be beneficial in certain situations, but my fear would be that a novice photographer may never bother to use a tripod or even have one with him ... just in case ... because he's under the impression it's not required with a VR lens. Just my opinion of course.

While I'm arguing the negative side of VR, ( and I know there's a positive side) I should mention that it also becomes one more thing you might forget about while shooting ... either not having it turned on when you need it, or having it on when you don't. Also, VR drains the battery much quicker than normal.

 

[Isao]

For me the choice between the 70-200 vr and 80-200 af-d comes down to AF-S vs. AF-D not "VR". I need the faster focus speed of the 70-200 using AF-S technology instead of the screw driven AF-D. I know the faster focus is going to make a big difference in my sports shooting. That is the ONLY reason I'm saving up to upgrade from my 80-200.

I would also consider upgrading to a 80-200/2.8AF-S if I can find one used at a good price...

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Pa /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please note that the primary focus of my original post, which you did not quote, was my own experience and satisfaction with the Nikkor 70-200/f 2.8 VR lense. I don't believe any other comments in response to Nick's question evidence any such experience. Only later did I try to present the telephoto shutter rule of thumb. VR reduces "shake" motion, one of two causes of lack of image sharpness (the other being focus). Shake motion is literally magnified by lense length. The extra stops gained by the 70-200/f 2.8 optically and by VR can be used however the photographer elects in creating the image. Good braced hand holding, monopods and tripods are never used enough for their benefits to image sharpness and quality. And neither, in this day of automatic exposure and zoom lenses, is proper awareness of lense length and shutter speed. The VR and optical brightness just make for a lense more tolerant of the photographer's oversights. VR or no, it's always relevant.

Of course, of course. I misinterpreted the purpose of your post.

 

[perplex]

Do AF-S lens speed up with pro bodies? I'm wondering if if they do not so much then as bodies get stronger and stronger, then a AF-D lens could get close to the equivalent lens with AF-S in speed?

 

[mbriant]

AF-S lenses have an internal motor which is faster and quieter than the camera's motor. D lenses don't have their own motor, so rely on the motor in the camera. I believe the pro Nikon bodies have better ( stronger ) internal motors than the consumer versions, so are a little quicker, but AF-S lenses are always the fastest. The ability of the camera's autofocus sensors also come into play, as the better the sensor, the less searching the lens does while focussing ... making it also focus faster.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by perplex /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do AF-S lens speed up with pro bodies? I'm wondering if if they do not so much then as bodies get stronger and stronger, then a AF-D lens could get close to the equivalent lens with AF-S in speed?

It also has a lot to do with the weight of the optics and distance of the focus path. A 50 f/1.8 lens, for example, will likely focus faster than an AF-S macro lens simply because the former has very few elements and a comparatively short minimum focusing distance. When comparing apples to apples, however, I think an AF-S lens will almost always be faster than an AF-D lens; regardless of the strength of the camera's motor.

 

[lan]

Not all AF-S are made the same either. I find my 55-200VR pretty slow. I guess that's why it's a cheap lens.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not all AF-S are made the same either. I find my 55-200VR pretty slow. I guess that's why it's a cheap lens.

The 18-55, 18-135, and 55-200 don't use a true ring motor like all the rest do. They're the only exceptions. Also, focus speed is largely the lens, not just the motor - how many turns from near to far, what the maximum aperture is (more light means faster focus), etc. You'll find that your 55-200 focuses just as fast as the old AF-D 70-300 and a lot faster than the plain old AF version, for instance.

 

[milkpowder]

I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time!

BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time! BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?

I'd check this site out for some objective advice: Welcome to Photozone! The reviews are concise, understandable, and feature all the photographic tests a lens buyer could ever want or look for. From a personal standpoint, however, I'd recommend compromising on build quality and image quality by buying the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - same f stop as the high-end Nikon, equal or better sharpness in most cases, and nearly a third of the price. It's a consumer grade lens in build for sure, but it ain't no 18-55 either.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time! BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?

Without a doubt. The two are miles and miles apart in terms of quality. The larger f/stop is excellent and the faster focusing speed is nice, but the overall sharpness and contrast of the 17-55 is stunning, while the 18-55 is mediocre at best.

 

[dj_mocok]

Although I think 18-55mm produces better image quality than the overhyped 18-200mm.... Wahhh! /runs away...