NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Akira on August 04, 2015, 06:15:39
-
Just found the news at dpreview.com.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6268500488/nikon-introduces-24-70mm-f2-8-vr-24mm-f1-8-and-200-500-f5-6-fx-lenses
-
These are the official announcements on Nikon's global site:
24-70/2.8:
http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0804_lens_01.htm
200-500/5.6:
http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0804_lens_02.htm
24/1.8:
http://www.nikon.com/news/2015/0804_lens_03.htm
Unlike both zooms, the prime 24/1.8 is not an "E" lens.
-
Nothing really excites me in the announcement. Many will probably take the 200-500 seriously for birding on the cheap. I only shoot the 24-70 2.8 for specific things due to the size and weight. The new one is a bit bigger and appreciably heavier with 82mm filter. Would have to be a stunner at 24mm and 70 mm and then I'm not sure I would be that interested. I have a couple of 28 f2 Ais/Ai and I am more likely to use the 24 1.4 r 35 1.4 Arts. A new 135 f2 would have really gotten my attention :D
Tom
-
The Canon 24-70/2.8 II is just 805 grams, nicely compact, and regarded excellent optically. Nikon's decision to go with a VR design seems to have pushed it over 1kg in weight, which is a bit disappointing and may make the lens less attractive for travel and walkaround use. I suppose the VR may helps Nikon sell some additional copies but a more compact, well-built non-VR version would have been my preference. 82mm filter thread is also a complication since I don't have any other lenses with that filter size and none of my filters are 82mm. I'm used to being able to use just one 77mm filter size on many of the lenses that I use for landscape photography. Perhaps the larger filter size made it possible to reduce vignetting and improve corner sharpness.
-
Looking at the pictures of the 200-500 and I want to cry. That horrible tripod collar - again. When will they ever learn?
-
At one point they will hopefully change the foot design, but then they will be so popular that they will be sold out... :o
The 24-70 looks sound promising from the Nikon material:
The AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR allows users to enjoy even better resolution and softer, more natural blur characteristics than did the previous
When you look at the weight you should remember that it covers a lot of primes work... and hopefully in a good build quality, some zoom s a very flimsy inside...
-
Oh well - have to request a few more Nikkors for testing then - rats.
By the way, according to the MTF graphs the new 24-70 looks really promising. They have kept the long optical overall design which bodes well.
-
"Bigger is better" says Zeiss and Nikon follows. Thank you Erik for showing the size difference.
I really appreciate Nikon to have now completed the excellent 1.8G series
20 24 35 50 85
Still missing are 105 and 135 both have been in Nikons portfolio earlier.
I have no opinion concerning long telephotos because I do not use them
-
I had hoped the new 24-70mm would weight less instead it's the opposite.
-
Curious how the 200-500VR performs, sounds like nice travel tele.
-
It's probably a fine optical performer judged from the MTF. However, this has to balance against a truly awful tripod mounting arrangement.
-
Curious how the 200-500VR performs, sounds like nice travel tele.
I'm very curious how it holds against the Tamron and Sigma 150-600
I have the Tamron and it's a very decent lens for the price.
-
"Bigger is better" says Zeiss and Nikon follows. Thank you Erik for showing the size difference.
Apparently Fuji is following the same path. :D
It's probably a fine optical performer judged from the MTF. However, this has to balance against a truly awful tripod mounting arrangement.
Yup, the tripod colar looks inappropriate, especially considering the lens will be extended at longer settings.
-
I think the tripod foot is designed to match the speed of the airplanes...i.e. aerodynamic and light. But remember, life is a symbiosis and Nikon is thinking of RRS, Markins et. al. ;D
-
I had hoped the new 24-70mm would weight less instead it's the opposite.
I hope Nikon gave image and mechanical quality priority number one on this lens, and didn't care about size and weight. It might seem like that, as it is a good bit bigger and heavier. If it's better at the wide end than the previous model, it will certainly be worth it. Plenty of photographers, especially professionals (who is the target for this lens), will not trade quality for size and weight.
-
Of course. It was merely a faint hope given the other recent lenses they have launched.
-
Would the 200-500/5.6 be seen as a viable polar bear Svalbard trip lens? 8) The weight seems reasonably manageable, but is the lens aperture sufficient in the lighting conditions expected?
-
Just connect it with a D810A and crank up the ISO :)
More interesting is how fast and precise will the AF be on 5,6. I suppose that will depend on the camera as well.
It's an interesting lens. Let's hope the optical quality is good despite the relatively low price. They must have cut some corners somewhere.
-
They must have cut some corners somewhere.
Or perhaps they didn't on this one and instead are adding corners on their other, expensive lenses...
-
Just connect it with a D810A and crank up the ISO :)
More interesting is how fast and precise will the AF be on 5,6. I suppose that will depend on the camera as well.
It's an interesting lens. Let's hope the optical quality is good despite the relatively low price. They must have cut some corners somewhere.
So, you bought D810A?
I think the design is basically always fine (I haven't been disappointed with the kit lenses!). The problem has always been the quality control.
-
Not yet, Akira. But I have downloaded and studied rawfiles from D810A and D810. The difference at high ISO is very noticeable. When downsampled, the D810A matches the Sony A7II (and if you upsample A7II photos to 36 MP it will be a disaster!)
The slightly reddish colour cast that the 810A can give during general daylight photography is subject dependant, and generally not difficult to adjust if one wants to.
-
Not yet, Akira. But I have downloaded and studied rawfiles from D810A and D810. The difference at high ISO is very noticeable. When downsampled, the D810A matches the Sony A7II (and if you upsample A7II photos to 36 MP it will be a disaster!)
The slightly reddish colour cast that the 810A can give during general daylight photography is subject dependant, and generally not difficult to adjust if one wants to.
Is the red cast manageable in the current software? So far as my understanding goes, that is similar to the IR contamination from which older digital cameras generally suffered, and is very tricky to handle in the software. We addressed the problem using IR-cut filters.
-
Some of the examples I have seen indicate that the worst is certain black fabrics, they can get a slight red/magenta tint (remeber Leica M8...).
Some flowers with strong red/purple colour might be affected. On other subjects it is almost no visible cast. I would not use the 810A for colour critical work, but for general photography I don't think it will be a big problem.
-
I used to be "happy" user of D2H, so the same tips seem to apply to D810A. :D
-
Am I the only one excited over the 24mm? For me as a DX-shooter, 24mm is the sweetspot for a everyday, walk around lens. I use de 35mmDX a lot, but often wishes for a little wider FOV. So I'm really looking foreward to this.
But I still wish for a DX 24mm. Saving even 10-15% in size is valuable to me. Size difference between 35mm FX and DX is substantial, so please Nikon, give us a 24mm DX ;D
-frank-
-
I updated my just now to include the new lenses: http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html
Some comments:
AFS 24/1.8 G ED
This lens, unsurprisingly, has properties intermediate from the 28/1.8 and 20/1.8. The weight of all three lenses is nearly the same, the length also. The 72mm filter size fits neatly between the 67mm and 77mm of others, which corresponds to the increasing angle of view. It is a shame they didn't make more of an effort to standardize the filter size so that caps and polarizors could be interchangeable. The close focus limit of 0.23m also falls between the others although the maximum magnification is strangely less than the other two, if you are looking for a wide lens for closeups the 20/1.8 is a better option. Compared to the 24/1.4 it is as you would expect, a little smaller and lighter, and focuses a little closer. The table below shows a comparison with similar models:
| LensName | Weight | Length | Filter | CloseFocus | Ratio |
| 20/1.8 | 355 | 80.5 | 77 | 0.2 | 1:4.3 |
| 24/1.4 | 620 | 88.5 | 77 | 0.25 | 1:5.5 |
| 24/1.8 | 355 | 83 | 72 | 0.23 | 1:5 |
| 28/1.8 | 330 | 80.5 | 67 | 0.25 | 1:4.5 |
| 35/1.8 | 305 | 71.5 | 58 | 0.25 | 1:4.2 |
AFS 24-70/2.8 E ED VR
This lens has retained the overall appearance of its predecessor, to the point where they look almost identical - until you put them side by side. The new lens has grown in all dimensions. The older AFS 28-70/2.8 used to be known as "the beast", perhaps this name will now be applied to the new lens. It's heavier and slightly larger than the new 300/4 PF VR, and approaching the size of the old AF 80-200/2.8 zoom. The filter size has grown to 82mm, the first time Nikon have moved away from the standard 77mm filter for their pro lenses, which means caps are no longer interchangeable and buying another set of filters. This larger size is also used by Canon, Tamron and Tokina equivalents so seems to be par for the course.
I do find it strange that there are so many 24-70/2.8 models, as if all the manufacturers are following the same formula. Wouldn't it be interesting to have some variety, say a 28-80/2.8 or 20-50/2.8 for those who prefer slightly longer or shorter focal lengths?
AFS 200-500/5.6 E ED VR
An interesting addition to the lineup, giving the photographer a relatively affordable AFS super-telephoto. I suppose it could be seen as a successor to the old AI 180-600/8 ED zoom. Restriction to a relatively modest 2.5x zoom ratio, no nano-coating, no fluorine coating, modest max aperture and flimsy tripod mount suggest this lens was made to be as affordable as possible to compete with the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm zooms. The small zoom range hopefully points to good performance through the entire range. Nikon filed patents for similar zooms with a faster aperture at the short end, maybe they felt that would take sales from the 200-400/4, or would make the lens too expensive for its target audience. The size and weight is remarkably similar to the original 50-300/4.5, right down to the 95mm filter size. I was surprised the lens does not take internal filters, and I imagine 95mm filters are not cheap.
-
I notice that Nikon claims that the AF in the new 24-70 is 1,5 times faster than in the current (old) model. For some that could be important.
-
The AF action of the current (ie., old) 24-70 is already blazingly fast. I doubt the difference to the new lens will be of any importance, but of course, needs to be checked. The AF circuitry might also handle tracking with less overshoot so be more reliable.
The MTF curves of the new 24-70 are impressive and probably translates to a superior optical performance. I have requested a review sample.
-
FrankF: I fail to see what can be gained by a 24/1.8 DX. The optics would be virtually identical so the size difference would be negligible.
-
The AF action of the current (ie., old) 24-70 is already blazingly fast. I doubt the difference to the new lens will be of any importance, but of course, needs to be checked. The AF circuitry might also handle tracking with less overshoot so be more reliable.
There is a video out with the Nikon engineers/designers discussing the new 24-70/2.8. In it they talk about the new smaller & more powerful focus motor and it actually shows the two lenses focusing and the new one is faster. My current model 24-70/2.8 is so fast you sometimes wonder if it focused at all. The new one must be amazingly fast.
https://youtu.be/hayHj5FX4cI
-
FrankF: I fail to see what can be gained by a 24/1.8 DX. The optics would be virtually identical so the size difference would be negligible.
That was to me, not FrankF :)
I own the 35mm 1.8DX, and had a 35mm 1.8FX on loan for a while. Although the IQ was superior on the FX version, I haven't found a reason to buy one yet. And, from my memory, the diameter of the DX lens is visbly smaller, and it's about 2cm shorter. On a D7x00 it makes a difference to me. If this would mirror to the 24mm focal lenght is not for me to say, but for a walkaround lens, i like small 8)
I suspect that I will cave in pretty soon for the new AF-S 24mm, because it is a very useful focal lengt. DX or not, NAS is coming....
-frank-
-
As long as it wasn't Frankenstein, no worries :D
I have the old 24-70 and used it a lot earlier, but not much recently due to a change in my shooting requirements. I'll test the two against each other, of course.
-
Same here. I am eagerly waiting for the next social event to further use that zoom (AF speed being the top benefit). I recently shot a wedding with a 50/1.8G because I was only complemeting the job of a hired photographer (probably as professional as myself) and wanted to be discreet. I good good results, but variable FL is nice to have at times.
-
As long as it wasn't Frankenstein, no worries :D
Actually, sometimes it feels like my brain and mouth are not really connected. One acts without the other. So maybe you aren't that far off ;D ;D ;D
-frank-
-
On the edge of this topic: I'm still using the Beast, 28-70mm 2.8 AFS If when possible I'll compare it to the new 24-70 AFS VR
The Beast has been a work horse of mine since it was released only paired with the 24-70 AFS for a short period, the love for the 28-70 made me keep it and sold off the new one.
I have added 24mm 1.4 to go along with it among others but IMHO the 24-70 AFS was too weak at 24mm in the corners and way too much distortion up close.
-
Looking at the pictures of the 200-500 and I want to cry. That horrible tripod collar - again. When will they ever learn?
I just cannot get over this glaring design problem. I wonder whether you have talked to your contacts at Nikon about this and what their response was.
-
More than once and to no avail.
-
Nikon must be aware of the problem; otherwise they wouldn't publish this
http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d810_tips/the_electronic_front/
with example using the 80-400 at 1/50s.
However, they do not seem to grasp why the 80-400 is vibration sensitive ... which is astonishing.
-
Nikon must be aware of the problem; otherwise they wouldn't publish this
http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d810_tips/the_electronic_front/
with example using the 80-400 at 1/50s.
However, they do not seem to grasp why the 80-400 is vibration sensitive ... which is astonishing.
The situation is quite bizarre because the tripod collar must have design goals, as any other part. I would presume that the first and foremost design goal would be keeping the lens and camera stable over the whole range of shutter speeds, necessitating an analysis of resonant frequencies and taking measures to dampen them as much as possible. However, they don't seem to check whether this design goal is fulfilled by the current design, which looks like a see-saw and behaves like one, too. :)
Meanwhile, Sigma's 150-600 Sports lens seems to have a decent tripod collar. I haven't tested it, but its appearance suggest that there should be less problems.
Since the shutter movement is merely the source of the vibration, even faster shutter speeds should be affected by the vibration, exposures around 1s would likely contain several cycles that do not result in an obvious motion blur but still make for a softer image than could be achieved in principle.
-
The situation is quite bizarre because the tripod collar must have design goals, as any other part. I would presume that the first and foremost design goal would be keeping the lens and camera stable over the whole range of shutter speeds
I don't think they are trying to achieve this with their long lens collars. I suspect what they consider the tripod collar's task is to hold the weight of the lens (without breaking) and they further assume that the user has one hand on the camera and another hand around the zoom ring or on top of the lens. The user has probably turned VR ON in order to correct for vibrations that result from whatever source (loose tripod head, hands on lens and camera, etc.). Finally my guess is that they assume the user of such a light weight tele probably has skimped on the tripod in order to further save weight and chosen a model which can hold the lens without collapsing but not hold it steady.
If these assumptions are correct then the quality of the tripod collar and its mechanical properties probably make no perceptible difference to the results. Thus they can choose from the tripod collar designs one that is 1) cheap to manufacture, 2) as light as possible, 3) able to hold the lens without breaking from its weight. No intention is made in the tripod collar design to prevent vibrations since it would be futile to try to do so assuming the flimsy tripod and hands around the lens and camera.
It seems they never intended the tripod collar to be responsible for preventing vibrations. It is very clear when putting the 80-400 on tripod from its original collar and zooming to 400mm and zooming all the way in live view to see the details. Even in an indoor environment in a large hall where there is minimal air movement, the image will float a bit like the tripod were on a boat. Turning on VR reduces this but results in some degradation of sharpness compared to fast shutter speeds (or a lens with steady platform and mount) with VR off. Also I don't think with VR on you can get predictable framing.
Now the only way these kinds of collars could exit the factory is that they don't seriously consider the possibility of use of the product with a steady tripod and cable release, hands off the lens, and VR off, at slow shutter speeds. "Try turning VR on and see if that cures the vibration" was a camera store's recommendation. They didn't understand at all why I wanted to have VR off.
Maybe we should write a petition to Nikon? What makes the idea difficult to get support for is that some people think the whole idea of landscape photography with a long lens is doomed to failure. Personally I think telephoto landscape images are often very beautiful and moody, making me want to go out and experience those places whereas the super wide angle makes my legs and vestibular system feel a bit ill.
Luckily I've managed to find lenses up to 300mm that don't suffer from massive tripod collar design failure. I should probably knock on wood. But I would like a lens like the 200-500 for those distant landscape shots where there are layers of mist to create a sense of depth but sharp detail in the first layer. Also for large moons as part of a landscape, without having to purchase and carry around a 12k€ lens that may not have all that great a tripod collar either.
BTW EFCS can be very effective in killing most shutter vibration but it does nothing to reduce the effects of wind on sharpness, which can be severe in coastal open areas (even if there is not much perceptible wind). Also I don't think VR can predict and compensate for gusts of wind properly, it's a bit of a hit and miss affair.
-
I hear it is not only heavier in the Kilos but also went up in the
wallet domain 1500 old 2500 new. Is that true?
-
24-70mm 2.8 then yes, $2,396.95
-
I hear it is not only heavier in the Kilos but also went up in the
wallet domain 1500 old 2500 new. Is that true?
The 24-70? Not quite that much. On B&H the new one is $650 more. But it definitely could be worth it. We will see.
-
Nikon must be aware of the problem; otherwise they wouldn't publish this
http://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d810_tips/the_electronic_front/
with example using the 80-400 at 1/50s.
However, they do not seem to grasp why the 80-400 is vibration sensitive ... which is astonishing.
Meanwhile, Sigma's 150-600 Sports lens seems to have a decent tripod collar. I haven't tested it, but its appearance suggest that there should be less problems.
I had a look at the Sigma 150-600 Sports yesterday and its tripod collar is very solid with a low profile. The 200-500's collar looks like it's been designed to look fast and sexy.
-
It seems they never intended the tripod collar to be responsible for preventing vibrations. It is very clear when putting the 80-400 on tripod from its original collar and zooming to 400mm and zooming all the way in live view to see the details. Even in an indoor environment in a large hall where there is minimal air movement, the image will float a bit like the tripod were on a boat. Turning on VR reduces this but results in some degradation of sharpness compared to fast shutter speeds (or a lens with steady platform and mount) with VR off. Also I don't think with VR on you can get predictable framing.
Maybe we should write a petition to Nikon? What makes the idea difficult to get support for is that some people think the whole idea of landscape photography with a long lens is doomed to failure. Personally I think telephoto landscape images are often very beautiful and moody, making me want to go out and experience those places whereas the super wide angle makes my legs and vestibular system feel a bit ill.
BTW EFCS can be very effective in killing most shutter vibration but it does nothing to reduce the effects of wind on sharpness, which can be severe in coastal open areas (even if there is not much perceptible wind). Also I don't think VR can predict and compensate for gusts of wind properly, it's a bit of a hit and miss affair.
Another consideration of the Nikon VR is that it is designed to make the VR elements go back to the neutral position right after the shutter button is released, and re-start the vibration reduction until the shutter runs. Nikon explains that this is to avoid the decentered framing, but I would then doubt this movement may cause the blur because the shutter release timing varies from the model to model.
As for the landscape, Nikon would generally recommend wide and/or standard zooms which is good for outdoor use because they eliminate the need of switching lenses that would cause dusts to invade the camera. :D
If I understand correctly, the natural resonance frequency of the tripod/lens/camera combo (which is also generated by the wind) is too high for the VR system to follow. Again, if I understand correctly, that's why Nikon recommends to turn VR off on the tripod.
-
Nikon does mention a separate mode of VR for tripod use:
http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/Images/Micro-Sites/VR/technology/normal/tripod/
Nikon write "This mode automatically differentiates the frequency of the vibration from that of camera shake, and changes algorithm to correct image blur caused by slight tripod vibration. Tripod mode is employed in three super-telephoto lenses that are likely to be used with a tripod." The 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 are mentioned with explicit tripod mode VR switch.
Three other lenses where tripod vibration is automatically detected and reduced are mentioned (200/2II, 300/2.8II, and 200-400/4II), but it doesn't say if this is as reliable and effective as the switch-activated tripod mode in the three bigger lenses. I noticed the new 24-70/2.8 E VR also has tripod mode.
-
They are all heavy leneses and should generate relatively lower resonant frequencies which the VR mechanism might be able to follow. The VR in the new 24-70/2.8 might have improved in that aspect? Sorry there are all speculations.
-
I don't think they are trying to achieve this with their long lens collars...
If these assumptions are correct...
It seems they never intended the tripod collar to be responsible for preventing vibrations...
Maybe we should write a petition to Nikon? What makes the idea difficult to get support for is that some people think the whole idea of landscape photography with a long lens is doomed to failure. Personally I think telephoto landscape images are often very beautiful and moody, making me want to go out and experience those places whereas the super wide angle makes my legs and vestibular system feel a bit ill.
If this is indeed the case, it is a sad situation. This is quite ignorant of a very important use case for long lenses. I agree with you about the importance of long focal lengths for landscapes and I would also add cityscapes and architecture to the list of things that quite often simply look better with a long lens. I would definitely sign a petition like this.
-
The tragic aspect is that the first series of ED-IF telephoto lenses tended to have good to excellent tripod mounts ....
-
I am just an old school engineer. I was taught to keep the center of gravity low and tight when transferring weight to supports.
The 200-500 tripod mount just does not follow that design principle.....
-
You also need a design for unhindered access to the controls of the lens, focus zoom VR on off, AF MF etc. for purely practical reasons - The new foot designs allow for that and they look sleek.
If tele lenses where designed for strength and stability we would be back at he dual 90 degrees apart threaded fixed collar-less design of many decades ago... Do you really miss that?
-
I do not understand that Nikon is not listening.
So many Millions of bad Collars made and an Internet full of criticism.
-
I do not understand that Nikon is not listening.
So many Millions of bad Collars made and an Internet full of criticism.
Selective hearing 😊
-
I do not understand that Nikon is not listening.
So many Millions of bad Collars made and an Internet full of criticism.
Because these lenses aren't designed for slow shutter speed landscapes on tripods but for high speed monopod or out of hand use.....
-
Jan, Nikon themselves advertise the 80-400 with slogans like "Any subject. Any distance" and show examples including some landscape images, one of them of some trees at 1/10s.
-
I do not understand that Nikon is not listening.
So many Millions of bad Collars made and an Internet full of criticism.
Because these lenses aren't designed for slow shutter speed landscapes on tripods but for high speed monopod or out of hand use.....
I completely agree with JA here.
These are for action sports and wildlife shooters...
-
Jan, Nikon themselves advertise the 80-400 with slogans like "Any subject. Any distance" and show examples including some landscape images, one of them of some trees at 1/10s.
But you can do that with the lens, VR on tripod mode and shoot of couple of images and one will be sharp :)
-
You also need a design for unhindered access to the controls of the lens, focus zoom VR on off, AF MF etc. for purely practical reasons - The new foot designs allow for that and they look sleek.
If tele lenses where designed for strength and stability we would be back at he dual 90 degrees apart threaded fixed collar-less design of many decades ago... Do you really miss that?
Actually, I seriously want this. Switching between landscape and portrait orientation is much faster with this system, if small A-S plates are attached to both feet.
-
In my opinion, being optimized for wildlife and sports is not a good argument for bad tripod collars.
Besides, lenses such as the 80-400 are marketed as general-purpose telezooms, but being unstable at certain shutter speeds compromises their ability to perform as such.
It's relatively well known how to design a stable collar. Nikon can look back at some of their older lenses. The competition (Canon, Sigma to name two) are able to do it, offering more value and more potential uses for the lens. The more uses, the more sales. In this thread alone, there are a handful of people who didn't buy certain lenses because of this shortcoming.
A collar which is rigid and well designed does not need to compromise maneuverability for action shooters.
-
It is easy to understand that the requirement of sports photographers for carrying their long lenses dictates a grippable handle instead of a low-profile tripod mount. However, these concerns needn't be mutually exclusive. All it takes is to design the rotating collar generously wide, and let it have a broad and sturdy foundation for either a handle-type foot, or a low-profile massive foot suitable for long exposures. Surely it'll add mass, but even an increase of 2-300 grammes for a better support wouldn't hurt the sports shooters by much, and if judiciously engineered would make wonders for everybody else.
The current approach is contrary to these goals, though. The collar has been narrowed in general, and the foundation for mounting the tripod extension ("foot") has been weakened by paring it down in mass and size. From what I see of Canon long lenses, they are not much better designed than the corresponding Nikkors. Thus we apparently face an industrial problem.
-
But you can do that with the lens, VR on tripod mode and shoot of couple of images and one will be sharp :)
The 80-400 and similar lenses don't have tripod mode VR. You can of course turn on VR and it'll do something but rarely produces a result that is as good as the optics can produce with VR off (properly supported and/or at fast shutter speeds).
Also, turning VR on can lead to image shifting which is very annoying. In landscape photography it is common to stitch images and do exposure blending (e.g. when shooting into the sun) and an image that doesn't stay still from exposure to exposure is a nuisance.
-
Why doesn't it have tripod VR ? Sounds strange I thought all long lenses had that now...
Then you need to crank up your ISO!
Anyway I don't shoot with VR so couldn't care less,,, Keep complaining then, and I'll stop making fun of you guys :)
But don't set you hopes up high for a heavy tripod foot design...
Also the length of the collar as such doesn't change anything for stability, the tolerances and design of the lens/foot interface makes the difference!
-
While the length of the foot as such might be less important if the material and design are sturdy, the width of the collar as it rotates around the lens casing cannot be too narrow.
-
If the geometrical tolerances are tight then it doesn't need to be more than 10-15mm long - There is about 0 flex in the castings used...
-
Problem is more the flexing inherent to the lens casing.
-
If the geometrical tolerances are tight then it doesn't need to be more than 10-15mm long - There is about 0 flex in the castings used...
I would rather feel some kind of flimsiness from the "ring" part of the current collar, possibly due to the material.
-
More business for Kirk and RRS.
I have the Kirk collar and foot for the 80-400VRII and it is rock solid. It also provides a good carrying handle. The only downside is that it is not possible to reverse park the hood on the lens.
-
I have the Kirk collar and foot for the 80-400VRII and it is rock solid. It also provides a good carrying handle. The only downside is that it is not possible to reverse park the hood on the lens.
I'm wondering if Nikon changed the hood or Kirk changed the collar. I had this combination and the hood fit and locked in reverse position without problems.
Even with the Kirk collar (which does make the lens more stable on tripod) I still experienced blur with the 80-400 AF-S due to shutter and wind at focal lengths from 300mm to 400mm. Up to 200mm results were good, however. With some other lenses of similar focal lengths (up to 400mm) I have obtained consistent results using the same tripod and head though admittedly a more rigid tripod would be better for 400mm slow shutter speed work.
The 200-500mm has even greater angular magnification at 500mm and it is not clear how far a Kirk collar would have to extend its frontal support fork. I suppose the point where the transportation zoom lock is. To allow rotation to vertical orientation the frontal contact point could potentially scratch the "LOCK" markings, unless some kind of soft mounting (rollers?) is used. Here is an image showing the switch panel and transportation lock:
http://nothingwired.com/nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-vr-24mm-f1-8-200-500-f5-6-fx-lenses-announced/
I hope Kirk is able to figure it out for the 200-500mm. Still, I find it objectionable that every time Nikon brings out a new telephoto lens, one has to wait for third party tripod mount availability and then pay extra to get what should be supplied with the lens.
I agree that it would make things easier if the collar area on the lens barrel were wider. The 200-500 collar is very narrow compared to the length of the lens.
-
The tragic aspect is that the first series of ED-IF telephoto lenses tended to have good to excellent tripod mounts ....
Indeed, I just recently acquired the early 400mm/5.6 ED (non-IF) version for my Df. It has a wide tripod socket/mount and is extremely stable ;D