Nikkor VR

Zoom Raider

Did I understand correctly when I read on some Nikkor site that the vibration reduction in lenses can drop the F-stop by 3 numbers (or so)
so that extra light can get in? Just wondering if this is true, how can a steady shot bring in more light?
Or did they mean something else by this? If this is so, then I'll buy a Nikkor VR 24-120mm F3.5-5.6 someday.
I may buy one anyway,`cos it is a better lens than the two I have now, plus I still wanna get their 50mm F1.2.

Thanks!

Artur C.

What that means is....
The 3 extra stops are an estimate of how much slower of a shutter speed you can hand hold a camera with a VR or IS (canon) equipped lens. SO... the general rule of thumb is that you can hand hold the focal lenth at a roughly equivalent shutter speed for a decent photo. So at 200mm your shutter speed should be around 1/250th minimum without a tripod, so you figure in 3 extra stops slower with a VR lens HANDHELD, but it does not change the lens itself in any way. So with a 1/250th as a rule of thumb, you should be able to handhold the camer/lens at 200mm at 1/30th (I think my math is correct) with the VR on.

-Art
http://www.north-scapes.com

Seefutlung

While this all sounds great ... for some of the time it is ... the VR only reduces/eliminates/stabilizes movement on the camera end not the lens end. So if the subject is moving you will still get motion blur but the non-moving elements of the photo will be sharp.

So VR (IS in Canon, OS in Sigma) is useless for sports or shots of that nature. VR isn't as good, but easier than a tripod.

DoctorIt

Seefutlung wrote:

While this all sounds great ... for some of the time it is ... the VR only reduces/eliminates/stabilizes movement on the camera end not the lens end. So if the subject is moving you will still get motion blur but the non-moving elements of the photo will be sharp.

So VR (IS in Canon, OS in Sigma) is useless for sports or shots of that nature. VR isn't as good, but easier than a tripod.

Actually, you're not quite right.

VR/IS systems are in fact very advanced mechanisms. They can distinguish between lens shake and lens movement and compensate only for the shake. Most of the higher model lens also have active/normal modes, say, for shooting out of a chase car or an airplane.

And as for the camera not lens end, I don't know what you mean by that.

The VR/IS system works by physically moving the one/some of the many optical elements inside your lens to account for a shaking/moving of the whole lens. I'd need schematics to really explain it, but it's definitely not in the camera body (although there are some systems that actually move the sensor to compensate).

SuperJared

Instead of the 24-120 VR, spend another couple hundred bucks and get a much more versatile lens: the 18-200 VR.

Seefutlung

DoctorIt wrote:

Actually, you're not quite right.

VR/IS systems are in fact very advanced mechanisms. They can distinguish between lens shake and lens movement and compensate only for the shake. Most of the higher model lens also have active/normal modes, say, for shooting out of a chase car or an airplane.

And as for the camera not lens end, I don't know what you mean by that.

The VR/IS system works by physically moving the one/some of the many optical elements inside your lens to account for a shaking/moving of the whole lens. I'd need schematics to really explain it, but it's definitely not in the camera body (although there are some systems that actually move the sensor to compensate).

Don't know much about the Nikkor system, but I imagine it is similar to Canon.

Canon IS will not stop subject action/movement (period). On the newer IS sytems there is a switch that allows for panning ... so the IS won't try to stabilize left-right movement which I think you are alluding.

To clarify, IS will only stabilize hand shake (camera end). IS will not stop subject motion (lens end). So if you are shooting at 1/30 of a second, it is still 1/30 of a second and one has to account for that shutter speed and motion (blur) of the subject(s). If you are shooting ... mmmh say night time soccer, 200mm, 2.8 at 1/30 ... the field will be sharp while the fast moving players will be blurred (shooting the above settings with a non-IS lens everything will be blurred).

IS is nice, but it is not magic. One should consider IS as a poor but handy replacement for a tripod. If the subject will be blurred when shooting with a tripod ... then the subject will be blurred shooting with IS.

Additionally, Photozone has tested a Canon 70-200 IS against a 70-200 Non-IS and the MTF charts clearly indicate the Non-IS is significantly sharper than the IS (I am not saying that the 70-200 IS isn't sharp ... but rather the Non-IS is sharper according to photozone).

There are stabalization platforms for aircaft and ground vehicles, but those need to be mounted and are not hand holdable.

Zoom Raider

Yeah, I knew VRs or ISs reduce hand shake and other vibrations while the lens is in high zoom,
or high enough to where it starts becoming unstable. I didn't think these lenses are
any different from regular ones when it comes to object/subject movement.

These VRs/IRs are good for something like a bird in a tree far off in the distance if you have no tripod,
but even better if ya do have a VR or IS and a tripod, too. But earlier I was thinking more light could come in through a VR/IR lens,
but I understand it better now.

Thanks!

Time to go to work.

DoctorIt

Seefutlung wrote:

Don't know much about the Nikkor system, but I imagine it is similar to Canon.

it's all the same mechanism

To clarify, IS will only stabilize hand shake (camera end). IS will not stop subject motion (lens end). So if you are shooting at 1/30 of a second, it is still 1/30 of a second and one has to account for that shutter speed and motion (blur) of the subject(s). If you are shooting ... mmmh say night time soccer, 200mm, 2.8 at 1/30 ... the field will be sharp while the fast moving players will be blurred (shooting the above settings with a non-IS lens everything will be blurred).

A ha - that's what you meant! That was so obvious to me - but maybe not to everyone else, so you've clarified well - that when you mentioned camera/lens ends, I got to thinking about all the goofy sensor stabilization systems I've read about (and alluded to above) as opposed to optical stabilization (VR/IS/OS).

Seefutlung

DoctorIt wrote:

I got to thinking about all the goofy sensor stabilization systems I've read about (and alluded to above) as opposed to optical stabilization (VR/IS/OS).

Personally, I am only stable when I drink. (Improve's my photography too ... everything is sharp)

-Gary-

Bob Bell

Gary have you used IS in Canon lenses? The IS is in the lens near the end and its an element that moves back and forth to conteract the lens movement. It stabilizes vibration in both the body and lens. This body end statement is very non accurate and I believe misleading for those new to IS technology..

If you have a 500/4 or 600/4 one of the big reasons to have IS on is that he lens acts like a sail and moves around. IS stabilizes that movement.

IS is very heavily used in sports and nature photography. Long lenses require very good long lens technique and IS to patch up the rest. The smallest vibration amplifies in the big glass.

IS is very commonly used on mono and tripods. The 7-8 people I see each week shooting birds with their 500/4 IS or 600/4 IS use IS

Now I don't always use IS. If its a calm sunny day where I can push 1/1000 at a low ISO I will keep it off to gain a bit of sharpness. The difference in sharpness is sometimes apparent if you pixel peep but it doesn't show up in print very often. You can usually pick out other issues like not even shutter speed.

Nikon's VR system does lag Canon's and I think thats the reason why it hasn't shown up on the 500 and 600 nikon lenses.

AndyVaBeach

Nikon 18 - 200 VR Wanted
I've been back ordered for a Nikon 18-200 VR for almost a month. Does anyone know where I can pick one up at something less that the $1k I see on eBay?

Thanks for any help.

Andy - Virginia Beach

Scott_Quier

Zoom Raider wrote:

These VRs/IRs are good for something like a bird in a tree far off in the distance if you have no tripod,
but even better if ya do have a VR or IS and a tripod, too. But earlier I was thinking more light could come in through a VR/IR lens,
but I understand it better now.

I've read that you don't want to ingage the VR/IS when the camera is mounted on a tripod. I haven't seen why and the user's manual (which also says so) doesn't say why this is a bad idea. I've not tried it, so I don't know what will happen (the lens blows up because it can't find any vibration to dampen?).

jimf

Seefutlung wrote:

(...) So if the subject is moving you will still get motion blur but the non-moving elements of the photo will be sharp.

So VR (IS in Canon, OS in Sigma) is useless for sports or shots of that nature. VR isn't as good, but easier than a tripod.

That's not correct. I don't know about OS, I've never used a Sigma stabilized lens, but some of Canon's IS lenses offer a panning mode (vertical stabilization only) for exactly this purpose, and Nikon does Canon one better by autodetecting pans (vertical or horizontal) in at least some of their VR lenses.

I have done a lot of sports photography in mode 2 of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, with excellent results. I will agree that mode 1, full stabilization, is not the best ... so don't do that.

ziggy53

Scott_Quier wrote:

I've read that you don't want to ingage the VR/IS when the camera is mounted on a tripod. I haven't seen why and the user's manual (which also says so) doesn't say why this is a bad idea. I've not tried it, so I don't know what will happen (the lens blows up because it can't find any vibration to dampen?).

Scott,

Stabilization technology is "tuned" to work within very specific design parameters. Typically, the stabilization in Canon and Nikon and Minolta is designed to reduce the effects of hand-held photography. A tripod or monopod changes the nature of the shake and alters both the shake frequency and the way the shake occurs by physically limiting motion in one or more axes. This has a major impact on the sensors that have to detect and help direct the mechanism to counteract the shake.

ziggy53

Seefutlung

jimf wrote:

That's not correct. I don't know about OS, I've never used a Sigma stabilized lens, but some of Canon's IS lenses offer a panning mode (vertical stabilization only) for exactly this purpose, and Nikon does Canon one better by autodetecting pans (vertical or horizontal) in at least some of their VR lenses.

I have done a lot of sports photography in mode 2 of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, with excellent results. I will agree that mode 1, full stabilization, is not the best ... so don't do that.

Oh please ... panning is not a normal shooting mode for most photographers (percentage of panning shots to non-panning shots). In this thread I did speak to panning. And panning in and of itself is not very sharp (as opposed to a similar photo taken with a sufficiently fast shutter). And yes I do agree that IS is very very helpful when panning ... but be that as it may my statement is still accurate for the majority of photographers and the technique they use for most of their shots.

Seefutlung

Bob Bell wrote:

Gary have you used IS in Canon lenses? The IS is in the lens near the end and its an element that moves back and forth to conteract the lens movement. It stabilizes vibration in both the body and lens. This body end statement is very non accurate and I believe misleading for those new to IS technology..

IS is very heavily used in sports and nature photography. Long lenses require very good long lens technique and IS to patch up the rest. The smallest vibration amplifies in the big glass.

Yes I have used Canon's IS lenses. I guess I must write literally on this forum ... once again by camera end I was making reference to IS stabilizing camera shake (including the lens as the lens is on the camera end). By lens end I was making reference to IS not stabilizing subject motion (what the lens is viewing).

IS is heavily used by nature photogs ... but not by sports photographers unless for the odd photo (i.e. panning or low action shot.

Zoom Raider

Scott_Quier wrote:

I've read that you don't want to ingage the VR/IS when the camera is mounted on a tripod. I haven't seen why and the user's manual (which also says so) doesn't say why this is a bad idea. I've not tried it, so I don't know what will happen (the lens blows up because it can't find any vibration to dampen?).

Dang, that's weird.
I guess almost anything's possible that wouldn't ever be expected to happen.
A lens blowing up for having it too steady is now one of them.
Does this mean "do not leave it lay around while the camera is on"?
What if someone had very steady hands? Would steadyness void the warranty?
Now I'm not too sure about buying any VRs or ISs.

Zoom Raider

AndyVaBeach wrote:

I've been back ordered for a Nikon 18-200 VR for almost a month. Does anyone know where I can pick one up at something less that the $1k I see on eBay?

Thanks for any help.

Andy - Virginia Beach

One of the cheapest places I've seen that are honest is B&H. They have that lens for $749.
There site is http://bhphotovideo.com.
Go to their search field and type in that lens you want.
They can even have it to ya as lil' as 2 days, or maybe even one day.
but not if the post office and/or UPS run into problems.
And welcome to Dgrin, Andy!:):

And, I don't buy anything from Ebay unless it's the only place to get something,
`cos a friend got taken for a ride.
He lost $7000 on a car that he bought on Ebay. The law is still looking for the crooks.
Somehow, they found out they were running their business from a college in California,
and they haven't been caught yet.
They've been doing this car scam for several months now.

Cliff Photo

Zoom Raider wrote:

Dang, that's weird.
I guess almost anything's possible that wouldn't ever be expected to happen.
A lens blowing up for having it too steady is now one of them.
Does this mean "do not leave it lay around while the camera is on"?
What if someone had very steady hands? Would steadyness void the warranty?
Now I'm not too sure about buying any VRs or ISs.

When I've used the 70-200VR on a tripod the shot with VR off is always better than on. The VR is active when there is no camera shake due to a stable tripod, and blurs the photo. The VR is very handy when not on a tripod.

Seefutlung

Zoom Raider wrote:

Dang, that's weird.
I guess almost anything's possible that wouldn't ever be expected to happen.
A lens blowing up for having it too steady is now one of them.
Does this mean "do not leave it lay around while the camera is on"?
What if someone had very steady hands? Would steadyness void the warranty?
Now I'm not too sure about buying any VRs or ISs.

Nahhh ... in the earilier versions the IS was very smart ... so when mounted on a tripod it keep trying to stabilized a platform/frame/image which was already stabilized ... just sorta stun it wheels not knowing what to do ... later models has a switch for tri-pod and for panning, which allows free travel along one axis but stabilized along another axis.

I'm not into IS/VR because I mainly shoot action, so it doesn't do me any good. And an IS lens has been tested to be less sharp than a Non-IS (I am not saying that the Canon 70-200 IS is not sharp ... I am saying the the Canon 70-200 Non-IS is sharper). Sharpness is something I can use all the time... IS is something I would use only some of the time.

DoctorIt

Bob Bell wrote:

Nikon's VR system does lag Canon's and I think thats the reason why it hasn't shown up on the 500 and 600 nikon lenses.

I don't want to start a Canon v. Nikon war in this thread, but I'm genuinely interested in how you back this up. The technology is the same.

Bob Bell

DoctorIt wrote:

I don't want to start a Canon v. Nikon war in this thread, but I'm genuinely interested in how you back this up. The technology is the same.

Canon invented it and Nikon has implemented it afterwards. I am not saying that its bad just that Nikon cannot figure out how to implement it on big glass where its most needed. I have used a D2x and 200-400 VR and the VR does work. But where is it on the 500 and 600. That is why I am reading about Nikon owners buying a Canon body and either their 500/4 IS or 600/4 IS so that they can use IS when photographing Nature or using the big glass for Sports. I have had several people tell me in person that they would switch to Canon Super TF's if they could afford it.

Additionally, look at the pricing gap between Canon and Nikon. Nikon is a lot more money and doesn't have VR.

Thats another issue for Nikon.

The lagging is that they are behind the market space not that Nikon is bad or something

Zoom Raider

I'm wondering... since I think Canon makes better lenses,
why don't they make lenses for Nikon and other
camera body manufacturers, and Nikon for Canon and others?
Seems to me they all would make even more money if they did,
`cos I'd like to have a couple Canon lenses for my D50.
Is it a rule or something for neither of them to make any lenses for eachother and others?

And to think, WalMart (since they sell Canon lenses) told me that this Canon
lens that I was looking at would fit my Nikon N75.

Scott_Quier

Zoom Raider wrote:

I'm wondering... since I think Canon makes better lenses,
why don't they make lenses for Nikon and other
camera body manufacturers, and Nikon for Canon and others?
Seems to me they all would make even more money if they did,
`cos I'd like to have a couple Canon lenses for my D50.
Is it a rule or something for neither of them to make any lenses for eachother and others?

I'm thinking, one reason might be the problem with reverse-engineering the lens communications. Think about it this way. Canon has a name/reputation they need to maintain. If they produce a lens for Nikon and it has problems like some Sigmas have once in a while, then their name takes a hit. From that standpoint, I would think the cost far out-weighs any possible profit.

Zoom Raider wrote:

And to think, WalMart (since they sell Canon lenses) told me that this Canon lens that I was looking at would fit my Nikon N75.

I strongly doubt this. The Nikon mount is so totally different from the Canon EOS mount that there is no way you can get one to mount directly to the other.

Zoom Raider

Scott_Quier wrote:

I'm thinking, one reason might be the problem with reverse-engineering the lens communications. Think about it this way. Canon has a name/reputation they need to maintain. If they produce a lens for Nikon and it has problems like some Sigmas have once in a while, then their name takes a hit. From that standpoint, I would think the cost far out-weighs any possible profit.

Now I see. Thanks!

Scott_Quier wrote:

I strongly doubt this. The Nikon mount is so totally different from the Canon EOS mount that there is no way you can get one to mount directly to the other.

Yeah. I didn't know that back when I had the N75. Found that out when I got the D50.
And this was a photolab personel that told me that Canon lenses would fit my Nikon.

AndyVaBeach

Nikon 18 - 200 VR - Purchase help.

Zoom Raider wrote:

One of the cheapest places I've seen that are honest is B&H. They have that lens for $749.
There site is http://bhphotovideo.com.
Go to their search field and type in that lens you want.
They can even have it to ya as lil' as 2 days, or maybe even one day.
but not if the post office and/or UPS run into problems.
And welcome to Dgrin, Andy!:):

And, I don't buy anything from Ebay unless it's the only place to get something,
`cos a friend got taken for a ride.
He lost $7000 on a car that he bought on Ebay. The law is still looking for the crooks.
Somehow, they found out they were running their business from a college in California,
and they haven't been caught yet.
They've been doing this car scam for several months now.

Many thanks for the recommendation and advice. I've checked B&H in the past and the lens was back ordered; maybe they're in !

StephC

AndyVaBeach wrote:

Many thanks for the recommendation and advice. I've checked B&H in the past and the lens was back ordered; maybe they're in !

Nope - they still aren't in stock... for very long, that is. I have heard that people regularly checking the website have been able to snap them up because they do show up in stock very briefly. Check the site often during the day and you just might get lucky.

Fantastic lens, BTW. The sharpness, colour and contrast way surpassed my expectations for a super-zoom. Well worth the wait and the $$ (I waited about 13 weeks for mine!).

Zoom Raider

We don't really have to check their website all the time to see if whatever it is we want is on back-order or availiable.
We can have them e.mail us to let us know when they stock up on the items we were seeking to buy.
The lens I've been wanting lately is the Nikkor 50mm F1.4. It's on back-order.
So I may have them e.mail me when more come in. I'm in no hurry for it yet anyway.:):

jimf

Zoom Raider wrote:

We don't really have to check their website all the time to see if whatever it is we want is on back-order or availiable.

You could do something crazy like just order it and wait. They'll send it to you automatically when it comes in.

DoctorIt

jimf wrote:

You could do something crazy like just order it and wait. They'll send it to you automatically when it comes in.

livin' on the edge