Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR 1 soft edge

Hello guys. I recently got Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 1 in good cosmetic condition, and it looked good at overal performance. It's very sharp @ 2.8. I got it for ~460 dollars, which is, here where I live, very cheap for that kind of lens. Price for used is between 750-900 dollars, depends on condition. That seller had two of those, and she was using them both for years. I think that she was the first owner. Anyway, she dropped photography because of the kids, and she wanted to dedicate all of the free time to them, and shee was selling all gear cheaper than usual. Amen to that. I have been using it for a few days with D7100. I have noticed today that one side of the lens is softer than the other. Center and middle are perfect, VR @ 200mm 1/50 no problem for that bad boy. But there is some unusual softness on the right side of the image. Even if I stop it down, let's say 5.6, when you zoom a bit image, you can see difference in sharpnes between those two sides. I have found on web that lens may be decentered, and also that it depends on copy of the lens, that there are some good and some less good copies *photozone.com*... All kind of stories. I have found this thread: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR has very soft corners, and the "problem" is very similar. I got it for sport events and portraits. Not for landscape, ofc. I will use it mostly wide open, with center focus most of the time. So, should I live with that "softness" on one side, or should I take a risk and send it to Nikon and get short by few hundreds?

I used one of those for a while that would not produce an image with any sharpness at all until I got to 5.6 and was never as good as everyone kept saying. I've had a bias against it ever since. Maybe mine got dropped or used as a club or something but it was never very good. I have an 80-200 D lens and a few of the older 80-200/4 mf lenses, all are way better.

 

Rick H.

Thanks. I have no problem with sharpness with this lens. Its thick sharp. Softness is only visible at the right side of the image. It's fast, VR is great, can't really complain... Considering the price, I might keep it. I will see.

I own one and have used it with D7100, then D800E, and now also D500. The edges are softer wide open on the D800E, but seem fine on my copy on the D500. Yours might need a shim adjustment or something. For what you paid, you half way stole it!

 

 

Kent in SD

Yeah, the price was insane. And she had two of those. The other one was is worse shape, but still, very good performer. Anyway, I will post some photo examples later. Right side sharpness is ok, not great, but ok. It gets better by stopping it down a bit, but there's a difference between sharpness at the left and right side. Is it that visible in everyday shooting, I will see. But man, that lens is so sharp in the center / middle frame, it's insane. Considering the price, I may live with one slightly softer side I guess.

Considering the price you paid, I would send it in for adjustment. Then it would still be a lens that has not cost too much, but it will have a more uniform performance. Then you may be perfectly happy with it for years.

 

You may be able to live with it as it is, but why if it is easily fixed? If you see it already in the first photos you have taken with it, there is a chance it will start to annoy you to the point that you may no longer like the lens at all.

I'm not quite sure why I'd ever have 2? I guess for film cameras with different speed film?

 

I don't like my VRII. Thinking of selling it. Never been impressed sharpness wise, anywhere.

 

I guess you could try it on full frame, that would really show if it's one specific soft edge.

Hmmm, since that's a full-frame lens being used on DX, the de-centring must be pretty bad to show up a few millimetres off axis.

 

I've only seen an image-plane tilt that bad on a Tamron SP 28-75 zoom, and that was bought from a dubious online company that I had extreme difficulty obtaining a refund from. I eventually got the refund and bought another copy of the same lens model from a more reputable source - it turned out to be a brilliantly sharp lens that I still use.

 

I suspect the vendor of your 70-200 VR was perfectly aware of its shortcoming, hence the low price. It might be worth seeing if she'll swap the lens for the more obviously used one, if it's better optically.

 

FWIW, anyone suspecting a tilted plane of focus might want to perform the following quick test, which doesn't even need a tripod:

Switch the camera or lens to manual focus and take a shot of a reasonably flat, straight subject - not necessarily a brick wall, but something with fine detail into the corners of the frame. Now, without touching the focus, turn the camera upside down. Frame the subject identically and take another shot. Ideally the edges and corners of both shots should show the exact same focus. If opposite edges of the two shots show different degrees of sharpness, then you've got a wrong 'un.

 

Unfortunately, some small degree of tilt is fairly common. You just have to decide if you can live with it. Bear in mind though, that once you know a lens to be faulty it can completely ruin the fun of using it, and time will only make the fault more irritating and obvious to you.

I don't have the VR version but I am much less happy with the AF-S lens that I have now compared to my AFD, two-ring, version that was damaged.

 

You certainly might have a lens that needs to be realigned. Sharpness left to right only makes sense that way. Remember, this is a FF lens. The results would be even more dramatic on a FF frame body.

Tnx guys. I will contact local service to see what can they do about it. Shame, lens is really remarkable. I did a quick test, and yeah, I know, it's not perfect, low light, handheld, high iso... Sadly, I don't have enough time right now to test it, but you will see what I'm talking about. I have noticed that sharpness gets better when it's stoped down, and I may be wrong, but it seems like right corner gets sharper when I move single focus point from center to right side. Maybe some fine tune will do the trick. I will try some different and better tests in next few days. I also noticed that focus difference between left and right sides are more visible when is focus distance higher.

 

So, high iso, handheld, 2.8...

 

Handheld, 200mm, 2.8, 1/1000 center sharpness

It is well known that version 1 of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR has soft corners at 200mm on the FX frame. However, that is mostly an event, sports lens such that only center sharpness is important.

 

Additionally, the OP is using a D7100, which is DX. Problems with soft corners at 200mm should not show up on DX, as the softness should be in the outer edge of the image circle, which is not used by a DX body.

Sure, tnx for the info. I have a plan to use it for indoor sports, events and portraits. So, yeah, for me, center is the most important. I agree that it shouldn't show up any softness at the corners, but I guess that I was out of luck with this one. But for the price of 460 dollars, I can't complain. Just for the info, does anyone knows the price for lens centering? Is it complicated? I guess it is, considering the number of elements in lens...

I'm not quite sure why I'd ever have 2? I guess for film cameras with different speed film?

 

I don't like my VRII. Thinking of selling it. Never been impressed sharpness wise, anywhere.

 

I guess you could try it on full frame, that would really show if it's one specific soft edge.

 

 

If you're a wedding photographer, back up & duplication is virtually required. A 70-200mm f2.8 is a standard much needed lens. What would you do if your only one were dropped/stolen/quit focusing during a wedding? The only answer is to reach into your bag and pull out another one.

 

 

Kent in SD

Anyone know anyone with 2 identical 70-200mm VR 1s?

 

Just asking.....:)

"Just for the info, does anyone knows the price for lens centering? Is it complicated?"

 

- It depends on the lens.

For example: I know for sure that the 17-55 f/2.8 DX Nikkor has 3 adjustment screws under the front cover-plate that allow easy adjustment for de-centring. Such alignment would be about an hour's labour plus the cost of a small plastic ring for a repair centre with all the correct equipment.

 

OTOH, a small-time repairer doing the adjustment by eye might take the best part of a day to get things even halfway right.

 

So, if the 70-200 VR has such an easy adjustment, and I suspect it does, then if you take it to a fully-equipped repairer you might pay a reasonable price. But don't hold me to that.

 

Best advice I can give is to fully describe the fault and get quotes. Also look online for reviews of the repairer. Some have an awful reputation for the standard of work delivered.

It may be that the 24MP DX sensor is revealing flaws which were not evident when the lens was a brand new model (2003?). It's also possible the lens got bumped around a little too much. I would just ask for a quote from a service facility and provide test shots that show the problem for assessment.

 

I can see how someone would have two 70-200/2.8's if that's the lens they use on a daily basis. I use primes as backups for zooms and vice versa, rather than have two copies of the same lens. This is because in the normal case where nothing breaks, I have access to capabilities that zooms don't support. But if one is very used to the zooms and prefers them then having two copies of the same lens makes sense.

It could be that, 24MP. Seller used it on D300S, 12MP sensor... Maybe she didn't noticed any dramatic sharpness because of lower resolution sensor? I don't know much about it, so I can't claim anything. The thing is, lens is very very sharp at the center and mid frame. Left side is little softer than mid/center which supposed to be a normal thing, and right side is softer than left side. It's not so dramaticlly visible at closer distances, but when focus is ~30 meters for example, right side of the image (edge) is kinda blurry.

Ok, so I removed UV filter, and I tested it a bit. You can cut yourself on center/mid sharpness @ 2.8, form 70-200mm at close range. Even sides are good. But it seems that side blur comes at higher distances, when focus is at 10m or infinity. Center and mid are still sharp, but edges get blured. I will use it for portraits and action/sport/pets in action photography, and 90% of the time @2.8 with center focus.

 

Image @200mm f2.8, few meters from the wall. Handheld. Both edges are soft.

 

 

 

Ok, maybe that was not the right example, because focus could be behind bricks in hole, but there is a second one. There's some reflection on D and Y letters. Also 200mm, f2.8.

 

 

I noticed that sharpness improve a little when I remove UV filter (yeah, it was cheap one), I will dedicate more time to that, and I want to say THANKS to anyone who participated in this topic.Tnx guys! I will keep you up to date with service and other stuff.

Edited September 22, 2018 by leonis_balodis

Just one thing, If lthe ens is decentered, would the whole image be softer? Because of that moved element? Could it be because of the lens mount maybe?

I´d give it the test of time considering the price you paid. For many uses the uneven sharpness might be less important. My confidence in Nikon service is not overly high due to former experience.

I have one that is fine and have never minded the corner softness. For absolute image quality -with analogue film at the time- I used to feel the 80-200mm D was slightly superior.

The glaring weakness in my eyes is inordinate sensitivity to adverse light, i e the sun or another strong light source shining into or nearly into the lens barrel. Then my sample used to flare horribly.

That's 'cos the lens hood is stupidly short.

No, I think -and this was well published at the time- that the 70-200 mm (version1) lens has this atrocious tendency to flare maybe because of more lens elements and the coating Nikon used.

The hood of the 20-200mm AF-D lens was even shorter but flare with that lens was rather moderate.

If the sun or another strong light source is inside the frame, the hood and its length is totally irrelevant. Years ago in January of 2000, I was in Tanzania photographing sunrise. I was using the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, with the sun inside the frame. Ghosting was very serious, as seen from the viewfinder of the F5. Fortunately I also had the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro with me. I quickly removed the zoom and switched to the fixed 200mm lens, problem solved.

 

Zooms tend to have many elements, which leads to flare and ghosting issues. Optical VR adds even more elements and compounds the issue.

The top right of the image is unacceptably blurred to me, and unfortunately it doesn't look like a simple image-plane tilt, because the bottom left isn't correspondingly more sharp. The blur also appears to split into a double image.

 

Considering we're only seeing a DX crop at low magnification, I dread to think how bad the image gets in the top right corner of a full-frame shot.

 

If you're happy with those results Leonis, then fine. If it was me, I wouldn't be, no matter how deep a discount I got on the price.

 

What does something like a Tamron SP VC 70-200 f/2.8 go for in your part of the world?

I have had the AF-D and AF-S 80-200/2.8, and now a 70-200/2.8 VRI and f/4AFS lenses. I (informally) tested the AF-S vs the AF-D, and thought the AF-S was better at 200mm & close ranges so the AF-D was sold. When I got the VRI, I thought it better overall than the AF-S, so that lens was sold. For what I shoot with the VRI (sports and individuals) the VRI is fine, in fact I like the sharp center with softer, darker corners for effect. I don't at all feel compelled to borrow the VRII version I have access to. I do tend to use the f/4 version more, though. It is much lighter/smaller and is very good, optically.