VR on Super-Tele (I don't get it!)

[curt wiler]

Ilkka is correct about the different lenses - but also remember that there is a difference between having a lens locked down on a tripod, or having it mounted on a tripod but free to track a moving subject. Think wildlife and sports.

[curt wiler]

Let me expand a bit on my previous reply - For at least both the 70-200 and 200-400 VR lenses, the instructions are clear: "Set the (VR) switch to ON when using a tripod without securing the tripod head, or when using a monopod."

 

Regarding the ACTIVE mode - "The vibration reduction mechanism reduces camera shake when taking pictures from a moving vehicle. In this mode, the lens does not automatically distinguish panning from camera shake."

[leif_goodwin8]

Dave Moss: "re: mirror slap. it is a non-factor in picture sharpness. it has been proven countless times that the slap only occurs after the image has been taken. "

 

Mirror slap is very significant in the critical region of ~1/15" and even at 1/100" can cause significant image degradation depending on the particular camera, lens and tripod in use at the time.

 

The Markins site has a good article in which they test various tripods and heads.

[mark_chappell]

To take this thread in a slightly different direction: These new lenses are doubtless going to

be superb optics. But can anyone explain the logic of equipping them with such outlandishly

long (tall) tripod feet? The tripod mount looks like it was designed to amplify vibrations and

be awkward to mount on a tripod or store in a camera backpack. There must be some

reason Nikon does this -- but it fuels a small cottage industry (Kirk, Wimberley, etc.) of

making shorter replacement feet.

[rob_landry]

<i>To take this thread in a slightly different direction: These new lenses are doubtless going to be superb optics. But can anyone explain the logic of equipping them with such outlandishly long (tall) tripod feet? The tripod mount looks like it was designed to amplify vibrations and be awkward to mount on a tripod or store in a camera backpack.</i></p>

 

<p>I don't think there's any logic, it's just a poor design. I own a 600 Nikkor and can attest to its underdesigned tripod foot. The main issue is the rotating collar itself; it's narrow and since it's designed to rotate, there's a fair bit of flex at that point (which is very far forward). So then you have this long length of lens with camera body attached hanging way out in mid air with no support at all. This all adds up to plenty of vibration. If I release the shutter with a cable release, I can clearly see the camera move up and down. I don't use a cable release with the 600, I use good long lens technique and it helps tremendously.</p>

 

<p>So I guess VR would help even on a tripod but I'm wondering why they just couldn't design a better tripod mount. Perhaps if they had a mount that had a fore and aft attachment point so that the length of lens wasn't hanging out in mid air like that. I believe Kirk made such a mount for the AI-P 500mm.</p>

[mark_chappell]

Rob: If you use an Arca-Swiss type tripod head, you might try a replacement foot for your

600. It won't affect any issue with the front-back placement of the tripod collar but it will

substantially lower the lens relative to the tripod head. <P>

 

The Canon superteles have shorter tripod collars than those on the comparable Nikon

lenses, but I still saved quite a few grams and a couple of cm of height by replacing the

foot on my 500 IS with a part from 4th Generation Designs. Worthwhile, I think: makes

the lens a better fit in my carry-on backpack.<P>

 

One place to look: <A HREF="http://www.naturescapes.net/store/home.php?cat=30">

http://www.naturescapes.net/store/home.php?cat=30</a>

[ShunCheung]

Mark, at least in the past, the Nikon super-teles come with two tripod feet, the long one you see in the announcement images but also a shorter one. If you prefer to use the short one, you can unscrew the standard one and replace it with the short one. My 500mm/f4 AF-S is like that. There really is no problem.

 

Of course, the likes of Really Right Stuff, etc. also supply replacement feet with Arca Swiss type plate built into one piece.

[mark_chappell]

Shun, that begs the question of why they include the long tripod foot. I'm just curious: is

there some situation I'm not thinking of where the long tripod foot is better/more useful than

a shorter foot?

[josh_standon]

I have been waiting a long time for the 500mm F/4 VR lens. For years I have kept my money in the bank and let Nikon keep their non VR long lenses. Now, I am willing to make the trade.

[ShunCheung]

Mark, the attached image shows my 500mm/f4 AF-S, which is the original version from 1996 and I have owned it since 1998. I placed the smaller foot on the right side. I believe the smaller foot is intended for monopod use, and I have never even put it onto my lens.

 

The 500mm/f4 AF-S comes with a very long lens hood, which almost doubles the overall length of the lens. The longer tripod collar foot gives you sufficient clearance so that you can store that long lens hood in reverse, as shown.<div></div>

[bruce_stenman1]

There is also a problem with the amount of surface area exposed to the wind with large lenses. The lens becomes a sail for the tripod and the windage induces motion no matter how well it is locked into the tripod. If the tripod feet are encased in cement no problem or if the camera shutter speed is 1/1000 or faster again no problem.

 

In particular for wildlife shooters with a lens like the 600mm (which will be more popular now with the D3) it is not unusual to be shooting at f4 and wanting to use a low ISO of 100 and finding that the shutter speed is not anywhere near 1/1000 but more like 1/100. This is when VR is invaluable.

 

I use the 200-400mm f4 VR and have been able to hand hold shots at 1/30th at the 400mm setting and produce sharp images. So the VR really does work as advertised (at least with the latest generation of VR lenses).