70-200VR performance on Fx
 

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.

70-200VR performance on Fx
 

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

70-200VR performance on Fx
 

C J Campbell wrote:
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?

I have to admit that I feel a bit smug about this one. Fx was supposed
to be about image quality - wasn't it?
If I had a D3, then for what I use my camera for, a 70-200 would be the
lens I'd probably want to use most. I've seen enough samples now to
show that an "inferior" crop sensor camera, even with an "amateur" lens,
would whup a D3&70-200 at the long end.
It's also notable that while Canon doesn't have a match for the Nikkor
14-24, their 4 choices of 70-200 (IS/non IS, f2.8 and f4) are apparently
all excellent on FF, and 3 of them cost less than an inferior 70-200VR.

70-200VR performance on Fx
 

On 2008-04-29 15:13:52 -0700, frederick said:

C J Campbell wrote:
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?

I have to admit that I feel a bit smug about this one. Fx was supposed
to be about image quality - wasn't it?
If I had a D3, then for what I use my camera for, a 70-200 would be the
lens I'd probably want to use most. I've seen enough samples now to
show that an "inferior" crop sensor camera, even with an "amateur"
lens, would whup a D3&70-200 at the long end.
It's also notable that while Canon doesn't have a match for the Nikkor
14-24, their 4 choices of 70-200 (IS/non IS, f2.8 and f4) are
apparently all excellent on FF, and 3 of them cost less than an
inferior 70-200VR.

Indeed. I think this is why a lot of people are expecting an update of
the 70-200 Nikkor to be announced along with the D90 in May or June
and, if not then, when the D3X is announced, probably in August. The
70-200mm VR is in need of an update -- sharper edge performance, VR II,
and some minor improvements.

Still, if you are using it on DX lenses, it is one of the sharpest
zooms Nikon makes.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

70-200VR performance on Fx
 

RichA wrote:
On Apr 29, 6:13 pm, frederick wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:
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?

I have to admit that I feel a bit smug about this one. Fx was supposed
to be about image quality - wasn't it?
If I had a D3, then for what I use my camera for, a 70-200 would be the
lens I'd probably want to use most. I've seen enough samples now to
show that an "inferior" crop sensor camera, even with an "amateur" lens,
would whup a D3&70-200 at the long end.

Why would anyone willingly go FF for telephoto work? Yes, it would be
nice to be able to fill the frame of an FX camera with the image, but
it's unrealistic, depending on your subject, unless you want to invest
in massive telelphotos or give up speed to keep the weight down.

I don't really consider a 70-200 on Fx a "long" lens. I guess I've
gotten used to APS-C, so for me on FX the lens would "become a 50-135"
or so, and I'd want a good 300mm lens as well as a minimum. (My present
kit of UWA zoom, light normal zoom, tele zoom, & macro lens in a
backpack really is the maximum I want to carry)
OTOH, 24mp Fx cameras look like becoming the norm soon, and I presume an
APS-c sized crop from those would suit most people's needs - but of
course probably not their "wants". (I don't exclude myself from that
either - 24mp Fx could be very nice to have)
High mp FX is going to be a huge $$ generator for camera companies. Dx
is already being used well beyond what 35mm was ever used for by most
photographers in terms of expectation for print size (or more commonly
pixel peeping on screen - and "cock-off" measurebating banter in forum
discussion), and I expect 24mp Fx is going to bring on rashes of lens
lust of unprecedented silliness.

70-200VR performance on Fx
 

RichA wrote:
On May 1, 7:34 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
RichA wrote:
Why would anyone willingly go FF for telephoto work? Yes, it would be
nice to be able to fill the frame of an FX camera with the image, but
it's unrealistic, depending on your subject, unless you want to invest
in massive telelphotos or give up speed to keep the weight down.
Why not? I think it breaks every terrestrial and celestial boundary of
stupidity using APS-C or APS-H when FF is giving you a much better image.
It's easier than you think to fill the frame with FX; I do it all the time.
You wouldn't happen to be from the backwoods of Tennessee where all the
inbreeds crop everything from their digital images to their testicles.
Here's a filled frame FX shot handheld at 1,000mm. Yes, no cropping
whatsoever and the large print made from it look much better than the
reduced for web image.

http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/whisper.htm

I'd be curious to see images from a 300mm f2.8+2x converter and the
D300 at 600 ISO compared to it.
And there is the weight issue as well. But if you can do it with the
D3, do it.



Don't you have cheap coolie labour available where you live?
I actually guess that Rita shot that at a zoo, but that might be a
little unfair of me.