|
|||||
|
Home >> Photography >> Film Equipment Nikon
AF-S VR 70-200mm f2.8 G IF-ED
This lens was a long time in coming for Nikon users salivating over the prospects of a fast mid-range zoom lens that offered the speedy focusing of a Silent Wave motor coupled with the stabilization offered by Vibration Reduction. The two main features of the new AF-S VR 70-200mm f2.8G IF-ED are not firsts for Nikon, but putting them together in one lens definitely is. For those not familiar with the Nikon alphabet soup of letters:
At this time, I think it is fair to say that the new 70-200mm VR lens represents the most technologically advanced lens Nikon has produced (exotic lenses such as the 6mm f2.8 fisheye and the seemingly two-man bazooka 1200-1700mm zoom lens excepted, amongst others). A
Brief History It was the photo of Shigeo Ono using a yet unheard of lens, which Popular Photography published as being a 28-200mm f2.8 VR (!) lens that had Nikon users buzzing. A 28-200mm f2.8 lens!? Good God, what kind of monster could that be and how big was the dolly that Ono-san used to cart that sucker to take photos of Mt. Fuji? The photo itself showed the lens used by Ono-san and yet, how could such a monster lens be so small, remember 28-200mm at f2.8 constant aperture. As it turned out Popular Photography had made a mistake and published the number 28 instead of 70. Either way, it made for a lot of speculation and lust from Nikon users. Now with hindsight, it would seem obvious that Pop Photo was not trying to scoop everyone on this new lens because the official news release from Nikon about the 70-200mm lens was released in late February 2002. So, it is more likely that Pop Photo attempted to coincide the end of the news embargo with their publishing schedule. This is not uncommon, as reviewers are often told of or even provided with samples of new products from the manufacturers with the agreement that no disclosure or sample images be published until a so-called embargo date has been reached. The
Phony War
During the “phony” wait, Nikon users wanting an AF-S telephoto zoom lens could make do with the 80-200mm f2.8, introduced in 1999 and those wanting a VR lens had but one choice in the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens introduced in May 2000. I should note that Nikon’s news release from February 2002 did indicate that the 70-200 lens was in development and made no promise of actually shipping as a fully realized product. The 80-200 AF-S lens was considered by most accounts to be excellent but was a modest evolution of the stellar legacy Nikon created with the 80-200mm f2.8 type lens. Criticism was generally leveled at the amount of light fall off in the corners (vignetting) the lens exhibited at f2.8 at 200mm. The lens was an instant hit despite the near doubling in price over the screw-driven version back in 2000 when it became widely available ($2500 versus $1500).
The 80-400 VR lens had more mixed reviews despite what seemed on paper to be a formidable lens that could answer the highly praised 100-400mm IS lens offered by Canon. Unfortunately, Nikon decided to use the old screw-drive technology for focusing and this made for one slow mutha’, especially when focusing at the long end of the zoom range. There appeared to be no complaints about the effectiveness of VR and most users were able to enjoy the three-stop slower shutter speed leeway that the lens provided. However, there were enough criticisms of the lens’ optical performance at or near 400mm that it was considered a bit of an enigma. In fairness though, most ACTUAL users of the lens had no complaints whereas those who had no experience with the lens seemed happy to pass judgment and spread innuendo. There was also a worry by Nikon users that having to separate the technologies of AF-S and VR into two different lenses meant that Nikon either could not or would not marry them together. Or perhaps that Canon still held patents on such lenses and was denying Nikon the ability to produce their version of lenses Canon already had. There was an interesting piece of innuendo thrown by noted photography writer Michael Johnston (37th frame fame) on one of the Nikon mailing lists about how the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) "persuaded" Canon to allow Nikon the use of their USM and perhaps IS technology. Johnston never did provide any corroboration or evidence of such an order after being asked; however, given the way Japanese keiretsus operate, who knows? A keiretsu can sometimes be translated into the western notion of conglomerate, but the reality is more of a loose affiliation of companies with a shared history and not of a group of diverse companies with a common ownership group. Many family-owned companies were forced to break their operations apart by the Allies at the conclusion of World War II; however, these newly independent companies still had a shared legacy and would often continue to cooperate with each other. Think of the Iwasaki family and their founding of the Mitsubishi empire, of which Nikon was a part of until Nikon became independent in the 1950s. Keiretsus would often have informal agreements to share information and technologies and through the public offerings on the Japanese stock markets, would buy large share blocks of each other’s companies. This is in contrast to western companies wanting formal contracts and agreements before information is shared or passed on, and where share purchases are a prelude to a takeover, whether hostile or friendly. So, I can definitely see the possibility that Canon’s USM technology and the ability to marry USM with IS/VR might have been passed on to Nikon despite the two being big time competitors. No matter what the true story, Nikon was able to respond to Canon’s excellent 70-200mm f2.8 L USM IS lens (introduced in 2001) within a short period of time and Nikon users are the better for it. The
Lens My own history with this type of lens now spans three versions:
The formal count appears to be six different production versions of the venerable 70/80-200mm f2.8 since the first manual focus lens was introduced in 1982. A two-ring prototype version was introduced in 1978. (Reference: Peter Braczko’s The Complete Nikon System). My memory of the first lens I owned is now quite distant having sold it in early 2000 to finance the upgrade to the AF-D version. I got tired of constantly shuffling back and forth between using it on a tripod with a Kirk tripod mount and then disassembling the large mount when I wanted to use the lens handheld. The new two-ring lens was a welcome change for much faster auto focusing although I did miss the very large push/pull zoom ring. The handling on the newer AF-D lens was not quite perfect in my hands and I would have much preferred the focus and zoom rings to have been reversed with the zoom ring near the front of the lens. Perhaps not practical for focusing, but then I did not purchase the lens to be used as a manual focus delight. The new VR lens is much better with the longer lens facilitating a superior placement of the zoom ring in my hands while keeping the focus ring where it really does belong, near the front of the lens. The focusing speed of the AF-D lens was quite fast and sufficient for my needs, if not particularly quiet, but also not that noisy either, unlike the older one-ring version. Although cameras with weaker auto focus motors could still strain to move the elements back and forth (F70, D100 cameras for example), beefier motors inside cameras such as the F90x and F100 focused very quickly.
When the 80-400 VR lens became available, it caught my attention and I wondered if it might have a place in my kit. It was not a decision to be taken lightly given the rather high cost of purchase near $2300 when finally available in Canada (it has since crept down to about $2000, as of this writing). However, after much thought I passed on this lens because while VR gaveth, the slow maximum aperture taketh away. The 80-400 VR lens can essentially be considered an f5.6 lens all the way through its focal length range and that means an instant and always two-stop penalty compared to the 80-200 f2.8 lenses. I appreciate that at 400mm, an f5.6 lens is not too bad at all, but at 80mm, that is downright glacial and makes for very difficult isolation of subjects amidst a cluttered background and becomes that much harder to try and mix in flash with ambient light exposure without ghosting. So, no putting the thumb into the VR or AF-S lens pies for Edwin, as he lustily looked over at his friend Larry using Canon’s very fine 70-200 USM IS lens. Is it a sin to covet thy neighbor’s lens? I make no bones about desiring certain things offered by Canon and shake my head at the Nikon nay Sayers who say humbug to those offerings simply because they come from Canon. I have my own say and fun with Canon offerings and marketing, but USM and IS are not among them. USM was pooh-poohed until Nikon came out with their own version called AF-S and suddenly it became the best thing since sliced bread to be able to override the lens focusing without switching levers or buttons. IS was also similarly dismissed, especially by those who questioned its value given how it does not do anything to give more motion stopping shutter speeds. IS is merely a static subject benefit and how many times are people subjects static outside of formal portraits? Of course now that Nikon has VR, well, how brilliant it is to be able to gain an average three-stop ability to shoot with slower speeds instead of being handcuffed to the shutter speed reciprocal of the focal length rule, e.g. 500mm lens requires at least 1/500 to handhold it steady and obtain a sharp image. Put AF-S and VR together and goodness gracious it’s manna from the heavens. And gosh darn it, the 70-200 lens is merely the first of an anticipated many as Nikon users hope and continue to pray that more such lenses will arrive. In fact the second AF-S/VR lens in the form of the updated 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 is expected to arrive in June. Could a slate of updated super telephoto lenses with VR incorporated into their AF-S designs be far away? Oops, I was suppose to start talking about the 70-200 lens itself, sorry for the digression. Some basic points about the new lens:
Some comments made by other reviewers:
Testing
the Lens Resolution The results surprised me because I had not thought the 70-200mm lens would offer much in the way of improvement over the highly regarded AF-D lens, but the results show that it is in fact superior to the older AF-D lens. I even did the test again to ensure that I had not missed focus or did something wrong, the second results, which are below, just confirmed the first set of results. At 80mm, the results are more equal, but the VR lens is still superior and at 200mm, it is plainly clear that the VR lens is a big step ahead of the AF-D lens. The images were processed in Adobe Camera Raw with 300% USM applied after conversion in Photoshop. The surprising result is that the VR lens at f2.8 is almost as good as the AF-D lens at f8 and at f8, the VR lens is clearly ahead of the AF-D lens in extracting the details of the subject. This is likely due to the VR lens being designed to obtain the most from digital capture whereas back in 1996 when the AF-D lens was introduced, digital was most certainly not the commonplace means of taking photos and film was definitely king. Last note, although I did do some test shots with an 85mm f1.8 prime lens, and although I did see this prime lens as being ever so slightly superior to the 70-200 VR lens, the differences were subtle enough that I saw no point in posting comparison images. However, the differences in chromatic abberation seen were dramatic, but more on that below. After seeing the results below, I pulled out my 35-70mm f2.8 lens and did comparisons at 70mm. The results indicated that the two lenses were quite close in performance, with the VR lens coming out very slightly ahead at the apertures I tested at. It was also interesting to note that at 70mm, the 35-70 lens has about 5% less magnification than the 70-200 lens. That old 35-70mm is one damn good lens even if the newer lenses seem like they're all that with a bag of chips with their ED elements and lens motors.
Resolution
on Film The sample images below were scanned with the Minolta Scan Dual III and given a 300% USM in Photoshop, which accentuated the grain and dust spots.
Chromatic
Aberrations via Digital Capture Although the shots were nominally at the same exposure settings, the two samples from the 85mm f1.8 prime lens are essentially washed out so far as the sky is concerned. This may be a result of not having a dedicated lens hood for the prime lens or it may have to do with light transmission characteristics of a prime versus complex zoom lens designs. A prime lens will always allow more light to flow through than a zoom at a similar focal length due to the simplicity of design of the prime lens. Although the chromatic abberations are better controlled with the prime lens as you stop down, even at the optimum resolution of f5.6, it still suffers greatly compared to either of the zoom lenses. The VR lens provides subtly better control of the abberations than the older AF-D lens. It should also be noted that the Nikon 85mm f1.8 prime lens does not incorporate ED elements in its design and the VR lens has more ED elements than the older AF-D lens. It is rather too bad the 85mm f1.8 lens should offer this type of artifact, as it was one that I considered for certain uses, but I am now at the stage that whatever lenses I purchase, must also be excellent with my D100 digital as well as my F100 film cameras. That need precludes purchase of the budget favorite 85mm prime lens.
Light
Fall Off via Slide Film I find that viewing the sample shots from a distance of about 2 to 3 feet away from the monitor helps to view the fall off better. The results indicate that the VR lens has more fall off than the older AF-D lens when shot wide-open at 200mm. At 70/80mm, the results are pretty much the same, with both lenses exhibiting less light fall off than at 200mm. The fall off gradually disappears as one stops down and by f5.6, there is only a small trace of fall off and at f8 there is none. It was interesting to note that in addition to the light fall seen at the larger apertures, there was also indication of modest underexposure from both lenses at f2.8 compared to the mid-aperture of f8 and down. As with the light fall off gradually disappearing as the lenses are stopped down, so too was this underexposure. As my experience with 70/80-200mm lenses is quite limited, I cannot make any comments about how good or bad the light fall off is for either lens vis a vis other prime or zoom lenses from Nikon or other brands. Fall off is sometimes referred to as vignetting, but I think vignetting is more of an effect caused by mechanical means (stacking filters for example) and not really the best way to describe light fall off, which is a darkening of the corners caused by uneven distribution of light (underexposure) at wide open apertures.
Bokeh Do Leica lenses use circular diaphragms and is that why everyone raves about their bokeh? Or is bokeh about specifically engineering a lens to provide the so-called creamy out of focus elements and that the implementation of a circular diaphragm is but one part of the design process. It seems that German lens makers lean towards the special design required of good bokeh whereas Japanese lens makers seem to believe that replacing a six or seven bladed aperture with a more circular nine-bladed one is all that they need to do. Well, I don’t know, but it is quite obvious that the use of the nine-bladed diaphragm in the 70-200 lens does produce circular highlights in the out of focus regions of the image throughout the aperture range. And that these circular blobs are nicer looking than the hexagonal blobs created by the AF-D lens. The out of focus regions of the VR shot at f2.8 are definitely nicer looking than the AF-D lens at f2.8, where the circular blobs are more well defined than the VR lens. At f8, it is less obvious than the f2.8 shots, but the VR lens does still have a nicer looking out of focus background. As to whether or not this constitutes bokeh for the true afficionadas, well, let the flames begin...
Flare What surprised me was that the shots of the sun near but outside of the frame caused an almost white wash frame from both lenses, but that the shots of the sun in the frame would make for the best shots. Then I remembered that Nikon’s Matrix meter was specifically designed to ignore the Matrix segments in which the sun is located and to use the other segments to calculate the exposure. Slick for that, but not so slick for the sun outside the frame shots though. Results on film were consistent with the digital shots, but they did appear slightly more forgiving of flare.
More Flare Samples Below
VR
Comparisons - Handheld Shots Because of my ability or luck at being able to handhold the lens at relatively slow speeds, I used the very slow f22 shots to clearly show the advantage that VR provides. At f22 the shutter speed was 1/8 of a second. Of the three images shot at f22, the VR Normal shot is the best of the three and although it is still soft in absolute terms, it could certainly be usable if push came to shove. The shot at f2.8 with a fast 1/500 shutter speed with VR off is for comparison purposes for a sharp image. We can also see that using the VR Active mode is actually detrimental to the image quality when used for normal static shooting situations. Also, keep in mind that with the D100 camera being used, the smaller CCD results in a cropping factor that turns the 200mm to a 300mm equivalent for the long range of the lens. While not a true 300mm magnification, it has all the problems of vibration and shake of a 300mm lens.
More handheld sample shots except these were taken indoors with a 2x teleconverter at a wide open aperture. It shows what can be possible using VR on Active mode in certain conditions - keep in mind that the shots below on the D100 represents a 600mm lens equivalent.
VR
and Tripod Use Why isn't VR compatible with tripod use? My guess (educated or not) is that the VR element is like a gyroscope that is always active in trying to repel vibrations when you have VR on. If you tend to shake in one direction, the VR element will shift the opposite direction to counteract the shake and provide a sharp image. However, on a tripod with VR on, the VR element is still active and in this current generation from Nikon, it is not yet "intelligent" enough to recognize when it is on a stable platform and when it is not, thus blurred images with VR on. So VR continues to attempt to counteract vibration and shake even when not necessary. Strangely though, the Active mode of VR presented an image that was a little less clear than with VR off, whereas the VR normal mode is very blurred. So, yes, do follow Nikon's recommendation to turn off VR when using the lens on a tripod.
VR
on a Weak Tripod This was to confirm the notion that VR does not work well on a good, solid tripod because of the stability provided versus VR working well with weak tripods or monopods because of the inherent instability. As with the shots taken on the Gitzo 1345 tripod, the shots taken on the weak tripod at fast shutter speeds showed no differences between VR off, on, or active. At slower shutter speeds, VR On was still detrimental to the image with a slight blur being revealed, but certainly not as bad as with the Gitzo shot. I found the Active mode though, provided a subtly better image than with VR off. I suspect that with slower shutter speeds, the flimsy tripod will definitely benefit from VR being on Active mode than off and only within the danger zone of speeds of 1/60 to 1/2 of a second for cameras without benefit of mirror lockup.
Teleconverter
Use At 70mm, the VR lens with the 2x TC focuses quite nicely, but does become more sluggish at the 200mm range. However, it is very nice not to hear the whining sound of the screw trying to focus the old AF-D lens with this converter. Another bonus is that the true aperture is seen in the viewfinder of the camera with the teleconverter attached to the VR lens. With the older AF-D lens, the viewfinder still indicated f22 instead of the true f45 that would result with the 2x TC attached. Even the EXIF data from the D100 camera reflected the more accurate CPU in the lens, as I saw 400mm as the true focal length instead of 200mm with the AF-D lens. Using a teleconverter with the zoom lenses just reaffirmed the resolution test results noted above. The VR lens is a definite step above the AF-D lens for resolving details. In the images below, the 80-200 and 2x TC image is first with the 70-200 and 2x TC below it (shot at 200mm plus TC for a 400mm magnification). In the roof at the bottom of the frame, the lines are clearly defined. The house above the roof shows the V-lines of the wood slats on the front wall of the house (look above the white double doors). And although I don't think it will come out as clearly as the uncompressed RAW file, the green house can be seen to have siding on its walls whereas the AF-D makes it look like it is smooth. Note too the telephone wires and how clearly they turn out in the lower frame.
In case you're wondering about how much the teleconverter robs away from the lens by itself, see the sample images below. At the left we have the 70-200 lens set to 135mm and on the right is 70-200 lens with the 2x TC set to 70mm, which gives a 140mm equivalent magnification. The results indicate that the teleconverter takes very little away from the lens; however, there is a tiny loss of resolution and contrast, but nowhere the difference between the 80-200 versus the 70-200. Both shots taken stopped down to f8 (or f16 in the case of the teleconverter shot) and saved as maximum quality JPEGs.
Lens
Usage Focus is swift, but seems to me to be dependent upon the quality of the camera being used with the lens too, e.g. focusing on an F70 camera was not as good as the F100 in terms of hunting, but that is likely a result of the sensitivity of the camera’s AF sensor. While the D100’s central AF point is quite good, the four outer points are less than reliable for quick focus acquisition and lock with subjects that the central point would not have problems with. The mechanical process of the camera focusing is silent, but not the actual movement of the elements inside the lens, which little can be done because the elements have to move back and forth to focus. I’m not sure if I made that last sentence very clear, so let me just state simply, no more whiny focusing noise, as is the case with the AF-D lens. The lens hood is long and deep, but apparently not as long as the original AF-S lens’ hood, but significantly better than the short non-petal shape for the AF-D lens. And Nikon is continuing its recent trend of providing lens hoods as part of the lens package, instead of forcing us to spend $40 for the AF-D hood. Of course simple economics would dictate that Nikon has already calculated the cost of the hood in the overall price of the lens, so it isn’t actually a savings. When VR is on one can hear the little click of the VR motor engaging and the viewfinder image shifts slightly. There is no waviness causing seasickness, as I’ve heard of for older VR/IS lenses. It is simply amazing to see the trembling of the viewfinder caused by one’s own hands shaking being counteracted by the VR mechanism and it is even more amazing to see the sharp images appear on the computer screen and comparing it to non-VR shots at the same slow shutter speeds. However, as other experienced users of IS/VR have noted, one should really not use VR as a crutch for bad technique. Your percentage of sharp images at slow shutter speeds will certainly improve, but in order to obtain the best advantage that VR has to offer, good technique is still required. In some of the test shots I did, I surprised myself at how well I was able to handhold the lens with 2x TC attached (400mm @ 1/60), with the results matching the quality offered with VR on, but that was only when I made a conscious effort to be steady. At other times when I was particularly sloppy in technique, not even with VR on would the shot be usable. Normal VR mode is suitable for the majority of photographic opportunities with this lens with Active VR really only required during very shaky situations. Using Active VR in normal situations can result in blurred images due to the aggressive implementation of VR by the lens in this mode. Shooting styles will have to change slightly when using VR, as one cannot simply rattle off a series of motor driven shots the moment you want. You need to wait for VR to engage first in order to utilize it and that requires a brief delay. In quiet moments you can hear it and know when to start shooting, but in noisy environments, best to give a half-second pause before releasing the shutter. There were references made on one of the Nikon lists that VR was not functional with the AF-On feature of current Nikon cameras. Without knowing more details and specifics, I made an automatic presumption I could no longer use the AF-On button to focus the lens and would have to use the shutter release to do so in order to enjoy the use of VR at the same time. This was an incorrect presumption on my part and I take the curses uttered at Nikon back. VR is indeed only engaged by the shutter release button; however, this does not preclude one from continuing to use the AF-On button to focus. While you can choose to have VR and focusing both on the shutter release button, using the shutter release for focusing has become so alien to me that during the brief period of time I had the AF-On disengaged, I found that I instinctively had my right thumb reaching for the button instead of focusing via the shutter release. I prefer not to have the AF via the shutter release because focus is not locked while I continue to have the meter active. As I compose and meter the scene, the subject focus shifts as I move the focus away from it. With the AF-On feature, I can lock focus first, release the thumb on the AF-On and compose the scene or meter other parts as desired. It really is quite simple and effective to have focus on the AF-On and meter-lock and VR on the shutter release. I could also use AF/AE button to lock focus, but this was awkward for me to keep the index finger engaged at the same time, as I was engaging and dis-engaging the AE/AF lock button when I wanted the focus locked. Nitpicks The only other major nitpick for this lens is cost. At nearly $3000 CAN, it is not going to be on everyone’s list. However, Nikon’s cost is in line with the Canon competition, so I bear them no ill-will, and if you go with Camera Canada, the price is actually even better than the Canon IS lens (I do recommend checking your local dealer first, you just may be surprised at the deal to be had). Fortunately, Nikon appears to be making VR more affordable for the masses with the 24-120mm lens as a start, but I know that Nikon users are clamoring for more lenses to be updated to AF-S and VR status and they wanted them yesterday. Conclusion I have made the claim before that I tend to see the world through the perspective of an 80-200 lens and its importance to me for photographing events, such as weddings, is extremely high to allow for either good ambient light only exposures or combined with some flash for a more balanced exposure. It is not uncommon to be in an environment that requires 1/30 or slower at f2.8 with ISO 800 films. Such a low light setting either requires a tripod/monopod to obtain a nice balanced exposure, or compromising the ambient light in favor of key flash lighting, which takes away from the quality of the exposure. VR provides the ability to obtain sharp handheld images in those low light conditions. VR is an expensive option at this time, but for those who have actually used it and enjoyed its benefits, there is no going back. I loved that old AF-D lens, but time moves on and I have been fortunate enough to be able to afford the new VR lens. The fact that it kicks the old AF-D lens for resolution when used with the D100 makes its high price easier to bear, but I just hope it lasts a little longer than the three-year average I’ve had with previous 80-200 f2.8 lenses, my wallet will be much less stressed. For the film photographer, the decision to upgrade to the VR lens on a purely optical basis is hard to make because the AF-D lens still acquits itself quite well and it betters the VR lens for controlling flare; however, for the digital photographer, the choice is a bit easier in favour of the VR lens. Except for the issue with flare, the 70-200mm VR lens is a worthy champion for Nikon in the fast aperture, telephoto-zoom lens contests and I look forward to many years of productive use with this lens from weddings to landscapes to portraits among many other uses.
Seriously though, these flowers were the only interesting subjects I had easy access to during the short time I've had the lens. The real test will be when the wedding season begins once again in June and the lens is used to actually make money. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
To
get a good measure of the lens from professional photographers, check
out reviews by (I will try not to repeat or duplicate too much of
what they have to say about the lens):
The
new 70-200 lens is a true doubling of costs over the older screw-driven
version ($2950 regular retail versus $1440 retail). Current prices
have been sourced from the Vistek website and are in Canadian loonies;
however for the best advertised price on the 70-200 lens, check out
Camera Canada ($2756, as of this writing). In case you’re wondering,
I bought mine locally through my regular dealer of 
Having
waded through my lengthy backgrounder, I’m sure you’d like to know
what I think of the lens itself. My MO for this review will be to
do direct comparisons to the lens I owned prior to the new lens, the
80-200mm f2.8D AF IF-ED (known as AF-D here on with the Silent Wave
version known as the AF-S version and the new one as VR). I used the
D100 for most of the test shots, but also did some shots with the
F100 and Fuji Velvia slide film.
The
lie about screw driven lenses being slow to focus was one reason why
I did not feel the need to spend an extra $1000 CAN on the original
AF-S version of the lens. Mount a decent Arca Swiss quick release
lens plate to the low-profile tripod mount and I was very happy. Even
when handholding the lens a significant amount, I did not bother removing
the tripod plate, as I simply moved it to the 12 o’clock up position
to keep it out of my way. The miniscule amount of added weight was
of no concern.
Initial
comments by me:
I
tested for fall off by taking shots of the clear blue sky. At the right
of this paragraph, you see what a shot taken at 200mm looks like with
no fall off (80-200 @ f11). Light coverage is clear and consistent across
the entire frame. Incidentally, the samples you see here are full frame
scans of Velvia film strips, not slide scans, which would have cropped
a small percentage of the total frame (black border is the boundary
of my Minolta scanner).
Here
we have some handheld shots at 200mm of a car in the shade. The images
were processed through Photoshop's Camera Raw Converter from Nikon NEF
to JPEG-High with a 300% USM applied before conversion to JPEG. The
crop of the car's door handle is at 100% magnification from the D100's
output.
VR
is not advised for use when the lens is mounted on a tripod; however,
not all tripods are created equal. I dug out my father’s ancient tripod
that no self-respecting serious photographer would ever want to use
due to it being short with thin diameter legs and being very wobbly.
So wobbly that I had to wait several seconds between exposures during
the testing whereas I only had wait a second or two for the lens mounted
on the Gitzo 1345 to settle down. And yes, I even used the centre column
of the wobbly tripod, a practice anathema to those that care about sharpness.
The
smaller diameter of the VR lens was very nice and easy to handle. As
mentioned already, the modest extra length really works out for me because
it puts the zoom ring in a much better location for quick access than
the older AF-D lens.
To the
chagrin of Michael Johnston who decried the abundance of flower images
taken the world over in one of his recent articles, I felt compelled
to show that I did not use the 70-200 lens for taking pictures of
money or to spy on my neighbors only. Although you could say that
I was taking photos of money to compensate for the rather light feel
to my wallet since buying this lens that is now the most expensive
in my kit.