Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR G

[Swampy]

Since Wayne said this was probably the best he's ever seen, I'll post the dragonfly up again.

1/60th, f5.6, STD, STD, STD, UV Filter on. Standing on a 6 foot ladder in the shade, sun kinda peaking through the trees to light the dragonfly up. Lens set to M/A focus, Full focus Range, VR in active mode. USM settings, 49%, .7, 0, 2 times.

[Swampy]

Same image, just the partial full frame, not sized at all. USM settings, 49%, .7, 0, 2 times.

[pauly99]

Swampy, I see that this lens is adorable. Been tossing around the idea of upgrading my old Tokina 80-200 2.8 to the new Nikkor 70-200 VR lens. Albeit a very expensive lens (not sure where I would end up buying one but I would look to save on the cost of taxes here in Illinois), would you have a yeah or nay or its 80-200 2.8 S counterpart v.s. the VR???. I shoot mainly sports but do not have the steadiest of hands. Your dragonfly pic is superb. Just 11 more shots like that and we'll see your upcoming 2004 dragonflies of the world calendar :eek:

[ronlcox]

Depending on what kind of sports you are shooting VR is probably not necessary because of the faster shutter speed you will be shooting inorder or stop the action. VR is used primarily when shooting landscaped or some static object zoomed out and hand held. Nikon even recommends turning the VR off if you are using a tripod. Probably the 80-200 afs would better fit your needs. I shoot sports and find the afs indespensible. And I know what you mean about hands not being so steady anymore.

[pauly99]

Just went down to the local camera shop where they carry most Nikkor lenses but was told that the 70-200 VR has pretty much replaced the 80-200 AFS as the AFS is not being made anymore.
The 70-200 VR runs around $1800 here and I gave it a try around the store. The S (silent portion) is sweet. My Tokina lens just hunts a little too much for my liking. If anything I would use a monopod when shooting baseball, football, and hockey but I like to handhold when at all possible.

[ronlcox]

I believe you'll love the lens once you purchase it. I shoot action with it as well. Shot drag boat races this summer but in the bright sunlight my shutter speed was a minimum 1/750 up to 1/2000. At those shutter speeds VR isn't of much use. However, I have also shot wildlife, prefer tripod but not always available, and have gotten excellent results with the lens.

[Swampy]

Almost forgot these other shots. This was taken while on a SeaDoo (I've posted these before), so this shows how the VR comes into play since I was bobbing up and down when I took this.

1/750th, f8, STD, STD, STD, UV Filter on @200mm

[Swampy]

And again, this one from a SeaDoo...

1/250th, f8, STD, STD, STD, UV Filter on

[Swampy]

Originally posted by pauly99
Swampy, I see that this lens is adorable. Been tossing around the idea of upgrading my old Tokina 80-200 2.8 to the new Nikkor 70-200 VR lens. Albeit a very expensive lens (not sure where I would end up buying one but I would look to save on the cost of taxes here in Illinois), would you have a yeah or nay or its 80-200 2.8 S counterpart v.s. the VR???. I shoot mainly sports but do not have the steadiest of hands. Your dragonfly pic is superb. Just 11 more shots like that and we'll see your upcoming 2004 dragonflies of the world calendar :eek:

Sorry Pauly for missing your post and not replying back sooner... The AFS is great for everything. Best lens I've ever bought. The only thing it probably won't help in is tracking sports. As you're pivoting, following the action, you're probably creating just as good of VR as the lens will do. But, if you're in the market for some really sharp glass that you can use for other things besides sports, the VR is the way to go. RacerX bought his from tri-state camera for 200 bucks cheaper than you found it though. Check out his thread - http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1311 under the happy users reports. You can probably find it cheaper, but more hassle or who knows what snag you may run into with other websites. I've got 3 buddy's who have purchased from this site with no real problems.

You can probably save some $$$ if you're only going to be doing sports and just get the AF-S instead of the VR. I highly recommend the VR series lenses to everyone though.

[pauly99]

Duh... to myself. I also ordered my Fuji S2 from Tristatecamera for $1749 around July1st of this year and couldn't be happier with their service. Yes, there was one drawback. Everything came with Japanese literature minus a copied version of the manual.
I also noticed that I could not get the free e-book from bythom.com because the serial number (I'm guessing import) was not recognized. With the 512 40X Lexar card, a battery charger, and a couple of added extras I figured that I also saved a few hundred (closer to $500 after taxes).

Tristatecamera did call and try to sell me on an extended warranty but I bypassed, received no hassles whatsoever and the salesperson was a real gentleman. Received the product in about 5 business days.

I cannot say the same for mraccessory.com when I literally had already given my credit card number to the salesperson and after the fact was called stupid for not wanting to purchase the warranty or the package that came with the S2 (table top tripod, battery charger, filters for lenses, cleaning supplies for the camera, smaller media card, etc...). Needless to say I did not and will never purchase from mraccessory.com.

Just checked and Tristatecamera is a bunch cheaper at $1599. Wolf camera wanted $1999 out here and my local shop $1799 both of course with 6.75% tax. hmmmmmmmmmmmm
I'm itchin' real bad at this point to pick up the new toy.

How do others in these forums deal (or do they do it on the sly) with their significant others when making such purchases?

[Swampy]

Most of the time, my wife doesn't play any part in my decisions either. Like Smunky said, I work hard for my money and as long as the bills are paid, I spend it as I like. My S2 cost me almost retail back in december, plus $1500 bucks for a treadmill for her. My Celestron telescope/lens cost me $1200 bucks plus a $500 dollar fountain for the backyard. :D

Actually, I just felt bad that I was spending so much money on those two things. When I bought my VR, I just bought it. That's it.

[Auminer]

Has there been a post that recommends a teleconverter for this Nikkor 70-200 VR lens? Will the VR still work? Loss of sharpness is a concern too.

Seem like I'll be waiting for a while on my 24-120 VR, was told 30-60 days! Heck its already been 30 days waiting, now this...

Thanks,
Dave

[Wichita Wayne]

She is a professional photographer also. When we decided that we would try a DSLR she said that at 53 years old that this might just be our last hurragh when it comes to a format change. For years we have used Hasselblads with great success. The few 35mm cameras that we owned were relagated to a shelf and once in a while on a trip. We still shoot a lot with our Blads but for weddings thay are rapidly being replaced by the digitals. When we retire we might just take the old 35mms and shoot slides for stock photo houses, if the still exist for slides. By then they might have figured out the copyright problems caused by not holding the original slide.

[Swampy]

Here's a butterfly from today. My bad. I was concentrating on getting the actual butterlfy that I didn't fully take the time to compose it correctly, thus, the cut off shadow. I think that would have worked out perfect if I wouldn't have cut the shadow off.

Handheld, 1/350, f.4.8, ISO200 @200mm

[Auminer]

Swampy,

speed 1/174, f3.3, iso 200, arperture 3.5, length 154mm



Just received my 70-200VR today and snapped this...what can I do to get sharper shots? VR was on...

Dave

[Swampy]

Was it on Active or Passive? If you've read about it, Active is more for all around bouncing around (handheld moving around all over the place) and Passive is for horizontal type movements, such as taking a picture out the side of a fast moving car.

Were you on auto or manual focus? Remember, the auto focus is also manual, where you can let the camera autofocus, and when it stops, you can readjust the focus without the camera freaking out and still take the picture. Maybe you bumped the focus ring?

You said 1/174 shutter speed, gotta be a mistype since the S2 doesn't do that one. Are all of your pics coming out this way? are you using Matrix or spot focus? If you're using spot and you had it on the center, that would have made it do this since it would have focused right above the neck of the middle goose, right on the water. But looking at the pic, it seems like it's completely out of focus, not forward or backward.

This leads me to conclude two things, either you bumped the focus (since I don't know if it's just this shot or all, I can't be certain about that, if all your shots are this way, then probably not this - see next one) or like I've shown a few people here, relax, drink a beer or a martini before you go out and shoot next time, you're trying to be steady too hard or you're just plain shaky! Someone here had problems at 100mm even at 1/500th shutter speeds. That person has learned to relax now and is taking great pictures now.

Lemme know the answers to these asap. I'm leaving town mid morning tomorrow and won't be able to reply back to you until Monday or Tuesday otherwise. I may get on tomorrow night maybe, but that's iffy.

[Auminer]

It was set to active, using auto focus. I am aware of the manual over auto, but it could be I bumped it. This doesn't seem likely as all my pics are coming out this way.

On the shutter speed, I was going by what PhotoShop told me. The exposure time is 1/750, f stop 3.3, aperature 3.5 and I was using Program mode.

This was hand held, maybe that is my problem, but I can't carry a tripod around all the time. Thanks for the offer, but I give up drinking about 15 years ago...start up again so I can get a good shot? Hmmmm...

Using center spot focus, but it looks sorta out of focus in the viewer to me when using auto focus. Is that possible? Could be my eyes, but do good on the Macro.

I haven't tried the Matrix focus and maybe I've jacked things out of wack by trying different things.

I just received the 24-120 VR today also and it seems like it is doing the same. MUST be a setting that isn't right, or me!

Thanks for the help,
Dave

[Auminer]

The previous was cropped so I could show the details, here is the full shot resized from 4256. I took 15 various shots of these geese and they are all somewhat out of focus. I can always get more pics of these critters, seem they like to hang around there on my way to the mailbox.

Sorry I didn't get right back, had work to get out.

[Swampy]

But you do have sharp shots from this lens? If it looks blurry in the viewfinder and it comes out blurry, then something isn't right.

In that shot above on the full frame, can you find any point in the picture that is in focus?

More after these answers...

[Auminer]

I just can't come up with a sharp shot!

[Auminer]

f 4.8, 1/350, aperature 4.5, 200mm, center weighted average could this be it? Cropped, focus point in red,

[Auminer]

Set it back to matrix, no difference. Also shot at 70mm and it looks the same. I am running on just the AA's with out the lithium batteries, does this lens require those? Trying anything...

Thanks,
Dave :confused:

[sandman]

Auminer
this is just a thought, i've got the 24-120VR , you've got to elimenate shake first ,try the tripod test. if you handheld at 200mm @ 1/350s, you're right on the limit , allowing for the x 1.5 ccd factor. try upping the ISO , if it is shake upping to 800 will help with shutter speed. also try different F stops, 3.5 will give a shallow D.O.F.
Just about every object in your pic is moving, the geese ,the water, the leaves, 1/350s might not be enough to stop it when handheld, so try it on a static object.

if your old lense did'nt show this ,then it could be one VR is dodgy, but not 2, make sure the m/a switch is set right on the lense .

try the tripod, and try the ISO .
Hope you fix this
Brian

[Auminer]

Thanks Sandman for your offer of help, and I've been shooting with a solid base using different iso settings as you suggested with the same results.

Isn't the focus set in the lens instead of the camera?

I have three lens now, but two are new to me, the 24-120VR and of course this one 70-200VR. I know what to expect with the 70-200, but not with the 24-120 as far as sharpness. I have reviewed your shots and mine don't compare with that lens either. Do you have anything such as a print (lettering) that was shot with this lens, I would like to compare.

Dave

[Andre]

Originally posted by Auminer
Do you have anything such as a print (lettering) that was shot with this lens, I would like to compare.


I shot this today with that lens - maybe it will help you...
(ISO 1600)

[sandman]

Dave
i'll shoot some lettering tomorrow for you to compare, not sure what you mean about the focus, there is a man/auto switch on the lense but all auto focus is through the camera. the nearest at the moment i've got to any sort of lettering is in 'photo's'' toys for boys, that might help you compare sharpness against yours, it was handheld.

Brian

[Auminer]

Maybe a pine cone would be a better subject, you have any there Sandman? I know Andre does.

shot with M/A on, VR on, f stop 5.6, speed 1/750, iso 400, 120mm, about 12 foot away, steady rest and cropped to show details. Is this the best I can expect using this 24-120 VR lens?

Dave

[Swampy]

Sorry Dave. Just got a chance to catch back up. I didn't see any shots done via tripod.

Do me a favor, take that pine cone for me at 200mm, Shutter priority at f11, ISO200, center spot focusing, on a tripod with either a loosly helf cable release, or set your self timer to 10 or 15 seconds (sorry Brian - too tired to look up the exact number :D) and let it rip. Frame the pine cone with the lens/moving the camera around the same as above, resize to 800x534 or what ever the odd number is on the end since the S2 doesn't produce a true scalable size to do 800x600 without distortion or cropping. Also, if you use PS, do the Unsharp mask with the settings of 49%, .7 and 1, twice.

Post that pic up tomorrow. Is your other lens (not the 24-70VR) producing sharp images?

[Auminer]

Finally got around to posting. I want to Thank you all for your help.

Swampy, I had called and sent the pine cone pic to Fuji prior to your post and was told it was "perfectly clear" and maybe it was my monitor...do what?? :eek: Got a call back a few moments later after he had showed it to another person. They ask me to delete any custom settings, take a shot above f4, and set the sharpness to "hard" using iso at 200. This is basically what you ask me to do! Here is the results after I also applied your USM settings, twice. f 11, 1/125. iso 200 Thanks! This will work! :)

Dave

[Swampy]

No problem Dave. I'm finding a lot of people for some reason become nervous all of a sudden when they're holding thier new S2 creating a lot of shake or as Fuji pointed out, possibly custom settings that a user may have done while messing around with new things. I was going to head there next. It looks like you've gotten a decent shot now.

Onward... Just south of Oregon, that tells me you live in the Shasta area? Lets see some of that area posted in the photo's area soon, ok? Nice area!

Now, if I can only get Fuji to pay me, or give me a discount on equipment (read, GIVE me an S3!!!). :)