1/6th second, hand held 10.5mm fisheye
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1285/4670028425_d2f6a0a695_z.jpg
No need for vr there.
Will Nikon make VR versions of shorter, fixed-focal length lenses?
(34 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
The image below was shot at 0.8 seconds on a monopod (about 5x longer than 1/6th of a second), without the benefit of VR. But I still would've rather had VR than not:
Posted 2 years ago # -
you would've needed a monopod regardless for a shot like that, so. . .
Posted 2 years ago # -
Nice, Arron. That looks like a fun lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
A while ago I was discussing the lack of VR on the 24-70, i think on photo.net. Someone suggested that the inclusion of VR in a lens often entailed some optical compromises, so unless it's absolutely necessary (longer focal lengths hand held at 1/20s and below) lens designers would rather leave it out, instead opting for absolute IQ under ideal conditions. Not sure if this is true, or whether it's more a question of the extra expense that VR would represent, and the compromises that would then HAVE to be made optically, in order to keep costs down.
Personally I shoot pretty happily down at 1/30s or 1/20s handheld with the 24-70, at 70mm, which is more than enough for me. A lot of the time i'm shooting people anyway, and movement blur is an issue even during candid-style shooting at those speeds. I'm also lucky enough to have a D3s though, so i've got plenty of ISO latitude available. I appreciate that not everyone is in that situation!
Posted 2 years ago # -
studio460 said:
Here's what I'm hoping for:1. AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 VR.
2. AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 VR.A 50mm f/1.2 with VR is likely outside of the capabilities of the F-mount. As the aperture gets larger, the rear element has to grow as well. There have been threads here that discusssed the difficulties of fitting any f/1.2 into the F-mount, whose "real estate" has become smaller (compared to the original 1959 version) by the addition of those 10 contact points to transmit AF power, AF data, distance, focal length etc). Do not overlook that VR works by shifting an internal element out of axis. For these shifted rays to clear the rear element, it needs to be bigger still.
The 85mm 1.4 will have similar problems, although to a lesser extend, because the rear element can be moved out a bit, where it interferes less with the contact points. If I were a betting man, I would say that the 85 will come out with VR (but at a steep price, because there are a lot of conflicting issues to be solved that require extra complexity) and I am absolutely convinced that any f/1.2 has no space left for the extra-large rear element of a VR-equipped construction.Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm just thinking out loud here, but if the VR really reduced image quality would they be using it on the large tele professional lenses? Or does it reduce the quality such a small amount that the trade-off is worth it?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Why would you want VR at f1.2 on a 50mm lens?!? At that aperture "blurry" shots are more likely to result from the narrow depth of field then from camera shake.
Noxin I think tangent is right and VR compromises optic quality in the $$$ sense. So that's why those pro zooms are so expensive. Everything has a trade-off I suppose.
Posted 2 years ago # -
noxin said:
I'm just thinking out loud here, but if the VR really reduced image quality would they be using it on the large tele professional lenses? Or does it reduce the quality such a small amount that the trade-off is worth it?When VR is "off", all elements are in the optical axis. There is then no optical penalty to pay. If VR is "on", the VR element may find itself out of axis. This creates MINOR compromises. To minimize those, the VR element gets centered the instant the shutter is about to be released, so that even that small compromise starts from the best possible position. The main worry on a supertele is chroma-aberration (hence the ED glass). Chroma-aberration is not affected in first or second order by an out-of-axis element. Therefore, I would not worry about compromises on anything above 100mm. On the wideangle side, astigmatism, field curvature, vignetting, straight-line distortion etc. are the challenges (hence the three aspherical lenses in the 14-24mm), which means that an out-of-axis VR element constitutes a larger compromise.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
