Nikkor 70-200VR --- what's the problem?

[arthuryeo]

I remember coming across various chatters and complaints about the 70-200VR not meeting the challenge when used on

a FF sensor. I have not touched this lens for a while but when I do, it always brings a smile to my face. I'm

not sure I understood the issues ... what's the problem? Vignetting? CA? I see none here whatsoever ...

<br>

<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2639912413_b8e27e438f_o.jpg"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3178/2639912413_9347a9499c.jpg?v=1215302684"></a>

<br>

D3; 70-200/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR; @f/2.8

[arthuryeo]

As usual, click on image to see larger version.

[ShunCheung]

Arthur, the problem is edge performance at 200mm, f2.8. Ilkka has been talking about this problem for years, but I never observed it on 35mm film. On the D3, the problem is very obvious.

DPReview's review points out the same problem:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0805/08050201nikon70200review.asp

 

and so does Bjorn Rorslett.

 

Since the DX sensor does not use that part of the image circle, it is not an issue for DX.

[robert_hooper1]

Great shot Arthur. It is corner performance that bothers some folks (image distortion, softness, and vignetting). In your

image that would be a moot point, because who would care?

[tpernal]

There is no problem Arthur. Obviously your photo is amazing!!!

I don't think the dog has any issues with either your composition, or the purported vignetting and image softness at the periphery.

A quick slight crop would dispel any qualms by the elitists anyhow...

[kevin_swan1]

Arthur, that photo is fantastic! Well done. It might've been slightly more compelling without the leash, but even as-is, your eye is immediately drawn to the subject. I have this lens and love it, and your photo is a prime example of why. Great shot!

[eajames]

I love using the lens for canine candids. I'm using a D300 so I don't run into corner sharpness problems. Have others

noticed the "swirley bokeh" of the 70-200mm?

[arthuryeo]

Eric,

 

What file type is your file?

[sngreen]

One of the most obvious issues with this lens on D3 is vignetting (which I clearly see in your image and) which

is (clearly) not caused by the optical inaccuracy. Since mostly vignetting on this lens happens at the long end

(and wide open) it can easily be recognized as the result of the light being blocked by its own narrow front

elements or even the lens hood. It is not necessarily a bad thing, but the dp trolls and fans of course picked on

that very fast and now you see the "faults" mentioned in almost every dp post where this lens comes into the

discussion.

 

Your image is fantastic!

 

- Sergey

[eajames]

Arthur, it was shot as a NEF and "saved for web" in Photoshop.

[robert_hooper1]

BTW, I like the leash.

 

It reminds me of the time I was bitten by a German Shepherd while jogging at Kailua Beach on Ohau. I remember turning

around and seeing the same expression on the dog, just before he grabbed my ankle.

 

He also was wearing a leash.

[james_symington1]

To be precise it is corner performance - and they are big corners at about 400 pixels vertically and horizontally in each corner on a D3 - at any aperture and zoomed out to 120mm or so and beyond. Even stopped down to f8, where you would imagine it would perform flawlessly (as the competition does and not to mention Nikon's 2 ring 80-200mm), it smears detail in an totally obvious and unnaceptable way. Shoot something at infinity and well stopped down and you will see it.

 

In the kind of shot you just put up here - and a good one it is - it is a non-issue. But on a landscape-type photograph you can sometimes find yourself in a position of having to crop out 400X400X 4 corners= >6 megapixels of image to cut out the mushy rubbish. That is essentially the problem.

 

The same problem is equally evident on film incidentally.

[elliot1]

Isn't someone going to post an exciting shot of a brick wall to show how bad the corner performance is (which is about the only time it might matter)?

 

FWIW, I like the leash too!

[dwight200]

Eric's file can be seen by downloading it and changing the extension to .jpg (from no extension)

[ShunCheung]

I am afraid that having a low standard for quality is not exactly a solution for poor optics.

When James Symington first started the following thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Oq4J

 

initially I thought his lens was "obviously" defective as the vegitation in his first sample is completely mushy. Either there was motion blur, which James demonstrated to be not the case, or most likely the lens elements were not aligned. You can read the rest of that thread yourself as a number of us demonstrated the same issue.

 

If your photography subjects are mainly people or animals such as portraits, weddings, sports ..., the corners of your image are likely to be off your main subject and perhaps even out of focus, as in Arthur's first image. In such cases corner performance is a non-issue. If you photograph landscape, architecture, etc. that require corner-to-corner sharpness, this is a major problem.

 

I would think those people who spend $1600 for a 70-200mm/f2.8 in additional to $3000 to $5000 for a D700/D3 are going to have a high standard for quality. Now that there are more and more FX DSLRs, Nikon will probably upgrade this lens in the not-too-distant future. Historically, Nikon updates the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF every few years anyway.

[richard_driscoll]

You link points back where we are now Shun!

[richard_driscoll]

Presumably at f/2.8 the DOF is so small that there just aren't many situations where it's possible to keep centre and edges in focus at the same time.

 

It's probably the same issue with the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 which has soft corners at f/1.4, yet people like it because, brick walls excepted, this fault rarely shows up in practice.

[richard_driscoll]

Thanks Shun,

 

I get it now. So when Thom Hogan says:

 

"Sharp. One of Nikon's sharpest lenses ever. Sharp at every aperture. Sharp with teleconverters. And the VR helps you achieve that sharpness."

 

....... he is referring to DX performance and so is the good review at photozone.de

 

This must be one of those cases where a lens supposedly good for both FX and DX just doesn't have enough coverage for FX and the fall-off is very dramatic - not gentle like it is with some other lenses.

[ShunCheung]

Sorry about the wrong link. I fixed it.

 

This is definitely not a depth of field issue. In the sample I showed in the other thread, everything is pretty much at

infinity, and I was shooting at f5.6. That means unfortunately the problem is not only limited to wide open at f2.8.

Additionally, the blur in the corners looks like motion blur, not out-of-focus blur. But obviously it does not make

sense that an image of a still subject has motion blur in the corners while the center is sharp.

 

Again, this problem has been independently reproduced by DPReview's official review as well as authorities such as

Bjorn Rorslett:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-200VR

 

Rorslett correctly points out that "For PJ-style work or for studio and portraiture, this flaw is tolerable, but not for

landscapes." That is why some people don't care about this issue.

 

The 70-200 also has vignetting issue at 200mm, f2.8, but for the most part vignetting is very easy to fix in post-

processing. The loss of sharpness and details is not fixable.

[oskar_ojala]

I think the vignetting is obvious in the posted picture. But as said, for certain types of photography the corner performance can be a major issue even if it isn't for every type.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Arthur - The 70-200 VR is a superb lens for the type of photo you've posted. It seems that the complaints about the lens come primarily from landscape photographers and the brick wall crowd. Why a landscape photographer would choose a zoom in the first place is, to me, baffling. Why not buy a few manual focus primes? You don't need AF-S for landscapes. But, hey, I don't generally use miniature formats for landscapes. MF is much better, and LF is stunning and much more flexible.

[jonb]

Fortunately for me, most of my use of the 70-200 is in the context of action sports shooting -- shots similar to Arthur's but with two-legged subjects -- shots that show the 70-200 at its best, especially on a DX body, although even there the 70-200's tendency toward flare and ghosting are an annoyance. But, Nikon, really, where is our updated 70-200 with FX corner sharpness and nano coatings?

[arthuryeo]

Hi Everyone,

 

Thanks for the inputs.

 

Shun,

Was your test at f/8 done with(out) VR? Was there absolutely no wind at all? MLU was used?

 

The ones from James S. still looked like motion issues to me because the blurriness has sort of "dragged" look reminiscent of subject movements.

[ShunCheung]

Arthur, it was actually at f5.6 and 1/640 sec. I bumped it up to ISO 400 to make sure that I had a good shutter speed. If your concern is camera shake, clearly the center part of the image is fine. As far as I recall, there was no wind. But the optical problem indeed makes it look like motion blur, which was the initial guess on James Symington's image.

 

This problem is easily reproducable and has been done so on many different samples of the 70-200. Since Arthur has all the components, I suggest you perform your own test and draw your own conclusions.

[james_symington1]

'Why a landscape photographer would choose a zoom in the first place is, to me, baffling. Why not buy a few manual focus primes? You don't need AF-S for landscapes. But, hey, I don't generally use miniature formats for landscapes. MF is much better, and LF is stunning and much more flexible.'

 

Why you trot out the same facile argument time after time is equally baffling believe me. What you say is obvious to anyone except the greenest beginner. There are clear advantages to MF and LF of course but portability and practicality are not two of them. I use MF frequently but carting a Hasselblad, four lenses and hundreds of rolls/sheets of film around mountains/deserts/jungles for up to 3 weeks at a time is no longer something I will do. Day hikes or if you can base yourself from a car on your trip changes the whole complexion of equipment choice.

 

That said when the D3X arrives it should be able to stack up well against MF. But the 70-200mm VR will still be highly inadequate.

 

As for using a zoom for landscapes, if it is good enough why not? One spectacular lens is the relatively tiny Canon 70-200mm F4 L which produces results that leave little to be desired compared to primes. I would very much like Nikon to produce something similar.

 

All the best,

 

James