daniel_smithson

<p>Polarizers are useless for high speed photography, because they have to be turned, and can not be operated from inside a hood, which you clearly need in a high glare situation. Thus they will get you to miss shots, or just not take them at all. Adobe Elements 14 has glare reduction filters.... </p>

<p>There are four steps to focusing a zoom and taking a photo using a VR lens, and three steps for a non VR lens.<br /> 1. Select the zoom ratio, by hand, turning or push pull.<br /> 2. Focus image, in AF the camera does this.<br /> 3. Give time for the VR to acquire and lock on target.<br /> 4. Snap photo.<br /> The 80-200 2.8D that I have is the older model that has a push pull collar, you do not have to turn your hand or release and make a second or third turning movement with the push pull that I have. This part is way quicker than turning, and for 95 percent of my shots the image is either 80 or 200 and this can be accomplished before the camera is at my eye. So for step 1 the old push pull is far faster. For step 2 autofocus is far faster in the new lens that you have, I have an 18-200mmVR11 so I have the silent wave motor and sometimes it is so fast that it appears not to be working. My lens requires no extra time for VR lock, so the older lens wins as I have no step 3. Step 4 is equal in both lenses. The VR lock takes forever in camera time, as this increment is visible to the naked eye, and I need over 1/1000 on most shots which is not visible to any human. Thus the older lens is faster to take a photograph, even though your AF is actually faster.<br /> The real problem with VR for me is that it is not recommended for high speed photography, which is 90 percent of the wildlife that I shoot, typically when I am in landscape slow mode, I miss a high speed shot, because a pheasant or an eagle gets airborne near me.</p>

<p>I am using a B+W UV haze filter that I just leave on the lens for protection, I have polarizers that I do not use anymore, and 81-A's as well. However the effects made by these filters can in some ways be created in software, so are filters worth the bother in the digital age? </p>

<p>Thanks Matt, I will try. Though the wind is blowing 30mph today, so the lake I had in mind for use is not going to be ideal.</p>

<p>I like k.e.n.r.o.c.k.w.e.l.l.s explanation of the fact that VR is useless for all high speed wildlife and kids photography. "IS and VR work great for subjects that hold still, which is most of what I photograph. VR doesn't do anything for subjects that are moving, like sports and kids." Google (VR vs non VR) to find out what real people who have tested every Nikon lens say. </p>

<p> I could post the link, but the truth is forbidden here for some reason. </p>

 

<p>Actually what is not right is people saying that VR allows for a better photo when hand holding at slower shutter speeds, but that it can not do this at a higher shutter speed, thus you can't use it and must turn it off, making it dumb to own in the first place. The VR mechanism does the same thing regardless of shutter speed, which is not part of the lens. I could so test with the 80-400 and the 200 both at aperture 5.6, and set the 80-400 to a 200 zoom to make them equal, then redo the test, which will still show the 80-400 to be blurry and inferior. This would not bother me if the lens were clearly broken, but it seems to do everything that it should, except for rendering crisp clear photos.</p>

<p>VR is a complete waste of money on Nikon, in fact you can't use it in many situations, so why have it in the first place? Google VR vs non VR and look for the link by Rockwell, he explains it nicely</p>

<p>I have tried everything except the tuning thing, which I might do today. Bye the way, centering on a bird in flight is not possible with the live view, certainly not on a tripod, so this method while it might be used for test pictures to rule in or out of something, could never be used for wildlife photography, thus should not even be on the camera from my point of view. </p>

<p>VR is useless in certain circumstances, if those are the circumstances that you will be using, then stay away from VR like the plague. I could repost k.e.n.r.o.c.k.w.e.l.l.s but if you google (vr vs non vr ) it will be there. If you shoot fast action you will need to turn the VR off, which means if you are using VR and fast action jumps at you, you will miss the shot while you are fumbling to turn the VR off, or take the shot with VR and get a blur.</p>

<p>The best beginner Nikon would be the D7100, it is currently on sale. Beginner kits are a waste of money, although they make it easy, the 7100 has a more dense pixel ratio than Nikons best camera the D810 and your money will be better spent here than on the 5200. <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d7100.html">http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/dslr-cameras/d7100.html</a> With the 7100 you will spend a little more, for a lot more quality......</p>

<p>Why would I want a VR11, when I have a VR that doesn't work? and when my 80-200,2.8D takes photos like this <a href=" and this <a href=" <a href=" <br /> Dan, if you are so sure that every Nikon lens is great, I will sell you a $1500.00 dollar lens, that now sells for $2500.00 for a bargain $1000.00.................. Then you can prove me wrong.</p>

<p>And yes the 80-200 2.8D is still readily available at all retailers. <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_80_200mm_f_2_8D.html</a> </p>

<p>I know full well what a Nikon camera and lens should be able to do, and while I have not tuned this 80-400 lens yet, I received a new 50mm1.4G lens in the mail yesterday and tested it for the first time today. I was up all night and am quite tired so I only had a short time to shoot the lens, but I ended up with these two shots, the first is me shooting my dog, as reflected off of her eye <a href=" and one more portrait, of the dog, scroll down to see link. <a href=" Point being, my new lens has clarity and depth unlike anything I have ever seen before, my camera is excellent, and most important, I can work the tools instantly. Which ends up in the 80-400 is trash, but I'm going to take it out in the woods, find a scenic spot with a brook in the background, and take some nice shots of the 80-400 with the new 50mm and then at least I will have good shot from the 80-400.</p>

<p>The simple fact is that of the VR images I have posted, have never even once come near the non VR images that I have posted. That said most of my images are sport type images, even if the athletes are of the animal kingdom. Since these athletes can not be directed to "smile for the birdie and say cheese" VR is a useless tool, and a big waste of money, as my 80-200 can be computer cropped to the same 400 image that the 80-400 produces and be clearer every time. Even though the 200 is a faster lens the image degradation from this pixel increasing should produce a less clear image than the optical 400 image.<br>

Result, VR is useless for sports and wildlife. I have 70mph baseballs frozen at 1/1250 so the seams can be seen with my 80-200, but all I can ever hope to get with VR is a blur at a maximum of 1/500. That said my 80-400 lens produces blur for still images as well. There is a good reason that the 80-200 non VR lens is still made, which is it is simpler and better than the 70-200VR. Some have said I am wrong, but do they take hundreds of photos per minute of eagles, ospreys or hawks in flight at slow handheld shutter speeds, and get crisp images. VR is useless for this <a href="http://leirdal.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/white-tailed-eagle-grabbing-fish-2.jpg">http://leirdal.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/white-tailed-eagle-grabbing-fish-2.jpg</a> anything else said is a lie.</p>

<p>Using mathematical logic, which I have done, if a VR lens is designed to reduce handheld camera shake at a slower shutter speed, (longer timeframe) the lens should easily be able to reduce (((less camera shake that occurs at a higher shutter speed))). Or in other words the VR has to work harder and do more at the slower shutter speed than it would need to at the higher speed, thus the VR image at a higher shutter speed should also be clearer. So that explanation does not make mathematical sense.</p>

<p>Again, a VR lens cost twice as much, yet it should not be used in the most challenging conditions. <a href="http://www.tydonsafaris.com/kruger-park-blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cheetahbuck.jpg">http://www.tydonsafaris.com/kruger-park-blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cheetahbuck.jpg</a> <br>

And again my manual says that the VR lens can be handheld in a driving vehicle, which is true, as long as you expect a blurry image. So how does one get a crisp handheld image, in a moving vehicle, with a slow shutter speed? </p>

<p>If one can not shoot at over 1/500th one can not shoot sport photography with VR, one can also not shoot wildlife either as the birds and cheetahs are moving fast and changing direction as well. But this is EXACTLY what _K.e.n.R.o.c.k.w.ell_ said in his review of VR technology. Faster shutter speeds give clearer photos, so if VR can not shoot fast, why have it in the first place.</p>

 

<p>My AF is always set to continuous autofocus, because my dog typically moves at 18 to 35mph. The 80-400 has never produced a single good shot here, yet the 80-200 never misses more or less. I do not change camera settings when I change lenses. Seriously, there is a reason that there is a VR11, which is the inability of VR</p>

<p>The tripod is a Bogen and the head is a Manfrotto that should balance 22lbs <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/368325-REG/Manfrotto_468MGRC2_468MGRC2_Magnesium_Hydrostatic_Ballhead.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/368325-REG/Manfrotto_468MGRC2_468MGRC2_Magnesium_Hydrostatic_Ballhead.html</a> The real kicker here, is that ALL of the literature for VR lenses, claims that it enables hand holding over tripod mounting, because the VR stabilizes the camera shake from handholding. Those images were the experiment, I always turn back to the 200 to prove that I can actually focus a photo. </p>

 

<p>that was the 400 with VR on mounted to a tripod. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22972445625/in/dateposted-public/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22972445625/in/dateposted-public/</a> </p>

<p>Here is the 200 handheld, with the same camera settings, <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22580279019/in/dateposted-public/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/136279335@N04/22580279019/in/dateposted-public/</a></p>

<p>Manual focus at this distance is beyond me, I need the camera to do it for me.</p>

<p>I do not choose any camera parameters, the camera chooses them for me. My U1 setting with sport parameters works just fine with my 80-200, why would they not work with the 80-400? The reason for the camera setting programs is so that people do not have to fumble when a photo is happening. Also I can not do any manual focus with my eyes at 400mm, the amount of turn on the focus ring is just too small from in focus to out of focus. As for the live view, I have much the same problem, and if I keep moving my head to focus my eyes I miss even a test shot. </p>

<p>The Af of the new lens may well be quicker, but turning the zoom dial is clearly not faster than push or pulling the slider on the old model. Also is continuous high speed AF possible with the shutter locked in VR? and can a target be tracked that changes distance to the lens at 30mph to say 100mph? </p>

<p>Why are people saying that VR is good for fast action wildlife and sports shooting? Once the shutter is half depressed and the VR locks, then if the subject changes it's distance the shutter will have to be released and re-depressed for as long as the subject, (an Eagle in flight) is moving. Does this not make the continuous autofocus setting in the camera impossible? Don't all sports figures move? baseballs travel 100mph.</p>

<p>Has anyone used both of these lenses? I have the D version and it is my go to lens as it produces stunning high speed shots. I believe that this lens was out of production for some time after the first VR version came out, but now it is back. So does the 70-200 VR11 version produce better pictures, or does the simpler heavy glass version still rule. My issues with the 80-400 are making me very skeptical of VR's real capabilities in any lens, and I might want a backup of this lens if I can not fix tune my 80-400</p>

<p>I am using the U1 setting which incorporates the sport mode, which uses the single point focus, this is what I use for the majority of the shots I take with this and my 80-2002.8D as well. When I need more focus points I simply switch to U2 which incorporates the landscape mode, in other situations I will switch to the green camera auto mode. These things work flawlessly with the 80-200 and thus I can be confident.<br>

When I am doing the AF fine tune, I will initially start with a 400 zoom, what would be the optimal distance to target be?</p>

<p>For the U settings, this is one area where I had difficulty, but have memorized both my settings and how to enter them, and yes it does take a bit of tweaking, but the info screen really helps. </p>

<p>Google dot tune method. It is a simple way of calibrating auto focus by using live view as the standard. Seems like it would be easy, if the user knew what they were doing, which I do not evidentially, seriously, I do not even know where this focus button is, that changes these values, the video assumes that one knows. I don't. <br /> Just took some more shots indoors, I can read text on a power adaptor at 200mm but not at 400mm, at 15 feet, though I might be too close as 65 feet might be the minimum for 400mm.<br /> On another note, I have been jumping around the web at other sites, some having Nikon in the name, and they were all nonsense. I would really like to thank everyone here who is showing me what I do not know, and for taking the time to explain those things. You people are the best, Thanks.</p>

<p>And just to show that I can take a photo <a href=" <br>

This dragonfly has landed on the back of a great blue heron <a href=" <br>

Thanks again.</p>