Nikon Z6/7 mirrorless system

[Bent Hjarbo]

When I use my 70-200, I normally have the VR on, and that works fine on the DSLRs, so yes there is a difference between optical VR and sensor VR.
I have noticed the sport VR on the Z6, but have not tried it.

[John Geerts]

I noticed that the Z6 does not like the VR in lenses.  Ibis seems to be switched off and somehow it works not so well as with non VR lenses.

That is at least my experience with the 24-120 f/4 VR.  I also have the feeling that the Camera-IBIS in the Z6 is a lot more effective than VR in a lens but I have only one VR lens

[Hermann]

I noticed that the Z6 does not like the VR in lenses.  Ibis seems to be switched off and somehow it works not so well as with non VR lenses.

That is at least my experience with the 24-120 f/4 VR.  I also have the feeling that the Camera-IBIS in the Z6 is a lot more effective than VR in a lens but I have only one VR lens

Does that apply to long lenses as well? Say 300mm and above? Because I heard a several claims the IBIS isn't effective at long focal lengths.

Hermann

[John Geerts]

Does that apply to long lenses as well? Say 300mm and above? Because I heard a several claims the IBIS isn't effective at long focal lengths.

Hermann

I didn't notice a difference. My AF-S 300 f/4 works identical with IBIS on the Z 6.  But that is a non-VR lens.

[Erik Lund]

There is a huge difference in the different implementations.
This is a very detailed article by Thom on VR, IMHO he covers more or less everything, it's a long read but explains in detail how and why Nikon VR works on Nikkor lenses, not on the Z in this article,,,
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/lens-technique/all-about-nikon-vr.html

Photographylife has a little article as well, did only read a couple of sentences,,, but i guess they agree about the differences and get it right, they usually do 
https://photographylife.com/understanding-ibis-nikon-mirrorless-cameras

Nikon short on VR:
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/a/products-and-innovation/vibration-reduction.html

And a recall:
https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/eu/BV_article?articleNo=000042596&configured=1&lang=en_GB

[Erik Lund]

Does that apply to long lenses as well? Say 300mm and above? Because I heard a several claims the IBIS isn't effective at long focal lengths.

Hermann

I would put it the other way around; VR can be more efficient on long focal length DSLR lenses than just IBIS
But it's also evident that VR in NIkkor lenses has advanced over the years, the claimed 'possible' # of stops is raising,,,
Quote;Nikon has now published the results of the standard CIPA test for all current Nikon VR lenses. This standardized test tries to give you a sense of how well the stabilization systems work in identical circumstances. Here are the current numbers:

• VR 2 stops better than no VR: 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D (old)
• VR 2.5 stops better than no VR: 16-35mm f/4G, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G, 600mm f/4G
• VR 3 stops better than no VR: 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX, 55-200mm f/4-5.6G DX, 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G DX, 85mm f/3.5G Micro-Nikkor DX, 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, 200mm f/2G II, 200-400mm f/4G, 300mm f/2.8G II, 400mm f/2.8G, 500mm f/4G
• VR 3.5 stops better than no VR: 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-P DX, 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G DX, 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G DX, 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G DX, 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G DX, 24-120mm f/4G, 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G, 70-200mm f/2.8G II
• VR 4 stops better than no VR: 16-80mm f/2.8-4E DX, 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G DX, 24-70mm f/2.8E, 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G, 70-200mm f/2.8E FL, 70-200mm f/4G, 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G DX, 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G (new), 180-400mm f/4E, 300mm f/4E, 400mm f/2.8E, 500mm f/4E, 500mm f/5.6E PF, 600mm f/4E, 800mm f/5.6E with 1.25x converter
• VR 4.5 stops better than no VR: 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E FX (AF-P), 200-500mm f/5.6E, 800mm f/5.6E

[John Geerts]

Thanks for your research and detailed explanation, Erik.

[Erik Lund]

You’re most welcome! It’s important to know the ’tools’ to get the most out of them

[Birna Rørslett]

The short register distance of the Z system simply begs for experimental setups. I have tinkered a lot over the last year with surreal combinations, and these efforts were again boosted by the arrival of my Z50. Not because the Z50 is the "best" of the range, it' because it's the smallest. Thus some combinations simply work better there -- for me.

The old Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2 really likes being put on the Z50. With a long helicoid it can focus from far away (but not infinity, unless the helicoid compresses narrowly enough) to approx. life-size 1:1. The lens is seriously sharp. Period.

At f/2 up close, the manifested depth of field is wafer thin. Hand-held, no stacking.

A rose by any other name ...

[CS]

The lens is seriously sharp. Period.

At f/2 up close, the manifested depth of field is wafer thin. Hand-held, no stacking.

"Hand held, no stacking", and no IBIS. Sharp indeed.

[Birna Rørslett]

"Hand held, no stacking", and no IBIS. Sharp indeed.

Just checked EXIF: taken at 1/13 sec, f/2, ISO 200. IBIS doesn't make the image fly on its own.

[Akira]

The short register distance of the Z system simply begs for experimental setups. I have tinkered a lot over the last year with surreal combinations, and these efforts were again boosted by the arrival of my Z50. Not because the Z50 is the "best" of the range, it' because it's the smallest. Thus some combinations simply work better there -- for me.

The old Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2 really likes being put on the Z50. With a long helicoid it can focus from far away (but not infinity, unless the helicoid compresses narrowly enough) to approx. life-size 1:1. The lens is seriously sharp. Period.

At f/2 up close, the manifested depth of field is wafer thin. Hand-held, no stacking.

A rose by any other name ...

Beautiful rose.

According to Redbook Nikkor website, the image circle of UMN 55/2.0 at 1/4 is 12mm.  I wonder how it can cover the full DX sensor!

[CS]

Just checked EXIF: taken at 1/13 sec, f/2, ISO 200. IBIS doesn't make the image fly on its own.

I was replying to how sharp the image turned out, without regard to the lens used. IOW, very nice hand held results. I can now see that I did not do a good job of saying that in my previous post.

Moreover, I was disappointed when the Z50 was released, in this day and age,  W/O IBIS. That certainly has not been an issue for you, but then, I am not you. 

[Birna Rørslett]

Beautiful rose.

According to Redbook Nikkor website, the image circle of UMN 55/2.0 at 1/4 is 12mm.  I wonder how it can cover the full DX sensor!

That probably refers to infinity focus. However, I'm not using the lens for that purpose. There is no obvious sign of vignetting on the DX format for ordinary close-focus work.

Added; are you sure this is for 1:4 reproduction? Then the mothership has a very restrictive view of the lens' actual coverage.

[Akira]

Added; are you sure this is for 1:4 reproduction? Then the mothership has a very restrictive view of the lens' actual coverage.

Birna, here is the newly posted page for UMN 55/2.0 on Redbook Nikkor:

https://redbook-jp.com/redbook-e/ultra2/a030.html

You can scroll down to see the detailed specification of two versions of 55/2.0.

The image circles of 10 or 12mm may be for the intended resolution for their original purposes.