D800E with 24-120: VR or high shutter...?

[tashley]

24-70 is my only AF prof lens, please don't tell me it don't preform on the D800

My friend, I cannot say! I don't have one but I have heard other people saying it... try Lensrentals.com and see if they have anything to say about it...


EDIT: I checked it out and look at this page, which is FULL of REALLY useful information, and information which totally bears out my observation of the 24mm PC-E, the 24-120, the 70-200 and the Makro Planar 100. It also shows that with a good lens (the best: the Makro Planar) the resolution improvement of the 800E over the 800 is truly significant.

I don't have an Imatest rig - not interested really - but it is good to know that carefully looking at real-world results bears out the 'official' numbers!

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?p=6175

read and enjoy!

 

[tashley]

Tim,

Thanks for these test shots. It's difficult to determine from the Web JPEGs, but I seem to see more micro-contrast in the 70-200mm images (texture in the stone surface) than in the 24-120mm shots. And the Zeiss image seems to show yet more micro-contrast. Do you see that looking at the full-size images on a large screen?

Having said that, the 24-120mm seems to hold its own against its rivals.

Joe

You're right Joe, the 100 Makro has the best sharpness and micro contrast but fringing is a problem. The 70-200 is almost as good but not quite. The 24-120 is surprisingly good and at 50% view or in a 200dpi print you'd have to be a connuoiseur to see the difference on centre, though the edges are sharper on the two costlier lenses.

My thinking is this: once you've bottomed out the performance parameters and limitations of the 24-120 it is a very very viable walk around and travel lens. If you have set a shot up and had time to prepare, take a prime, tripod, the whole thing, but the 24-120 gives you good shots if you imagine that your D800 is a 20mp camera (i.e. downres) and great shots if you work within its zones of high competence.

 

[Jack]

Now finally a comparative VR test which is entirely representative of what I have found:

All at F8, handheld, VR on, AF.

First at 1/125th the 70-200 followed by the 24-120:

SNIP IMAGES


So that's a fairly comprehensive set of shots that show good examples of what I am finding with these lenses in a more general sense...

Tim,

Excellent "real world in-use" comparison of these two lenses at comparable focal length. Thanks for sharing.

Also subscribe to the philosophy of a walk-around/travel/convenience zoom option and then primes for more serious work.

 

[ptomsu]

camera (i.e. downres) and great shots if you work within its zones of high competence.

This is exactly the issue I have with all of this - when shooting I simply do not want to care nor have time to really think about all of the limitations and which the high competency zones are. If such becomes the way to work, it is simply NOT for me.

But maybe this is the real difference to MFD - where you can use all parts of your system just with much less thinking and considerations in order to get stunning results.

End of the day I do not want to end up in a lens peeper and being limited by my system, just want to be able to take it and shoot and get great results.

 

[tashley]

This is exactly the issue I have with all of this - when shooting I simply do not want to care nor have time to really think about all of the limitations and which the high competency zones are. If such becomes the way to work, it is simply NOT for me.

But maybe this is the real difference to MFD - where you can use all parts of your system just with much less thinking and considerations in order to get stunning results.

End of the day I do not want to end up in a lens peeper and being limited by my system, just want to be able to take it and shoot and get great results.

I see it so differently: with the known great lenses on the 800/E you get stunning results without thinking about it and you can do things you just can't with MF, such as stabilised longer zooms with high ISO, at IQ that in most significant respects approaches (and in some areas betters) MF of equivalent resolution. But for when you're feeling lazy or want even more convenience, some of the cheaper and more flexible glass can still give great results if you know how to get there.

It's two cameras in one. If you don't want to be a peeper, buy the best glass only and you have something that truly competes with (I won't say beats) MF but with less weight on the system and more weight left in your wallet.

 

[ptomsu]

I see it so differently: with the known great lenses on the 800/E you get stunning results without thinking about it and you can do things you just can't with MF, such as stabilised longer zooms with high ISO, at IQ that in most significant respects approaches (and in some areas betters) MF of equivalent resolution. But for when you're feeling lazy or want even more convenience, some of the cheaper and more flexible glass can still give great results if you know how to get there.

It's two cameras in one. If you don't want to be a peeper, buy the best glass only and you have something that truly competes with (I won't say beats) MF but with less weight on the system and more weight left in your wallet.

Tim,

I will try to buy only the best glass for the D800E, as I do not really want to care about all restrictions and limitations of less great glass.

Please understand me right, I really appreciate your tests, as they allow me (and others) to identify the best lens solutions for the D800 / D800E.

Thanks always

Peter

 

[tashley]

Tim,

Excellent "real world in-use" comparison of these two lenses at comparable focal length. Thanks for sharing.

Also subscribe to the philosophy of a walk-around/travel/convenience zoom option and then primes for more serious work.

Thanks Jack!

 

[tashley]

Tim,

I will try to buy only the best glass for the D800E, as I do not really want to care about all restrictions and limitations of less great glass.

Please understand me right, I really appreciate your tests, as they allow me (and others) to identify the best lens solutions for the D800 / D800E.

Thanks always

Peter

It's my pleasure, really it is: I find it interesting as well as useful. Please excuse my current unbridled enthusiasm. It'll pass... :ROTFL:

 

[tashley]

Right, I think this'll be the last one in this series of tests: I had a sense that there was a decentered element in my 24-120 so I shot a reference frame this morning with the 24-100 at F8 1/500th handheld no VR AF against the Zeiss 100 Makro Planar at the same settings. Note that the nominal focal lengths are the same but the Zeiss shoots a little wider, especially after lens corrections are applied, because more of the frame is cropped in the Nikon lens due to more distortion being removed.

These show to my satisfaction that there is a bit of an issue with the RHS of the Nikon being weaker than the right. I might send it back. But on the plus side, see how across the rest of the frame the Nikon holds up pretty well against what many consider the reference lens for this focal length on the D800/E.

These are full-sized 91@ quality JPEGs. Zeiss first then Nikon.

http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v15/p58341203.jpg

http://tashley1.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v20/p503229275.jpg

 

[D&A]

These show to my satisfaction that there is a bit of an issue with the RHS of the Nikon being weaker than the right.

Tim, I think you had a typo in your statement "above". You said "the RHS of the Nikon being weaker than the right"....I think you may have meant "the RHS being weaker that the LEFT", not right (side)!

In any case there does appear to be some decentering in the Nikon, but often with wider range mid level zooms, this is not uncommon and it might require testing quite a few samples till a near perfect one is eventaully found. The next sample tested might be far better or possible worse.

Clearly there is better microcontrast with the Zeiss as shown in most of your test shots posted in this thread. The 70-200 VR looks very good too but that is tgo be expected from this very fine lens. When it comes to the 24-120 f4 VR compared to the Zeiss, we also have to keep in mind we're comparing apples and oranges and the 24-120 f4 VR aquaints itself quite respectfully.

Very much appreciate your posting these images!

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jack]

FYI, decentering is a real issue with VR/IS/OS design lenses, simply because the stabilizing element group does in fact move to perform the stabilization. In theory, it should perfectly re-center when VR is turned off, but it never does to 100% accuracy. What's interesting -- and especially in the lower price range lenses and I suspect you could see it in the 24-120 VR -- is that cycling the VR on then off a few times can sometimes "fix" the decentering.

 

[D&A]

FYI, decentering is a real issue with VR/IS/OS design lenses, simply because the stabilizing element group does in fact move to perform the stabilization. In theory, it should perfectly re-center when VR is turned off, but it never does to 100% accuracy. What's interesting -- and especially in the lower price range lenses and I suspect you could see it in the 24-120 VR -- is that cycling the VR on then off a few times can sometimes "fix" the decentering.

Jack, I've experienced that too on a number of occasions...but unfortunately with mid priced wide range zooms, I've more oftened encountered sample to sample variation with regards to decentering. Sometimes it's on the right side, sometimes on the left....and on occasion I've even encountered the situation where no sample tested had perfect centering and it simply appears the lens as designed is at it's limits when it comes to just how perfect it can get with consistant sharpness across the entire frame.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Jack]

Yes, in the cheaper VR lenses it can be a moving target for sure, and can be decidedly bad on one side regardless of what you do -- it's luck of the draw.

 

[tashley]

Thanks for those suggestions guys, that makes sense... I have run a few more tests and actually I think both things are going on. 'Parking' the VR and then re-starting it or shooting without it can vary the amount of RH blur a little, oftentimes bringing it into the unnoticeable range at 50% even with a demanding target, but never getting it as good as the left.

I guess this explains why the realisation of it has dawned on my slowly: it requires a very specific sort of target to be evident, is far more noticeable at the longer end of the zoom, and is quite variable depending presumably on the success of the 'parking'. It also seems possibly to be less pronounced if you let the VR settle for a second in which case it will probably be wise to shoot with VR on rather than off when the other circumstances sensibly allow.

I think I'm not going to send it back... as you point out, what with sample variation in cheaper zooms, especially those with such wide ranges, it might take a lot of time and hassle to get a better one and and for the great majority of the time it's not going to be a problem - particularly now I know how best to work around it.

Thanks again. Great suggestions!

 

[tashley]

ps one last note for those interested in this lens: it is an absolute pig to manual focus. The focus ring is bad feel and action and worse, as you try to iterate backwards and forwards to peak focus, the image jumps a bit as you change direction. It wasn't designed for MF and I will rarely use it that way, but some people might like to know this!

 

[tashley]

The last test images reminded me of an occasion when [many years ago] I had dinner with some BT executives at the top of the BT Tower. Revolving restaurant for the evening, with incredible views of London. Quite a treat, but no cameras allowed.

Joe
[email protected]

I never ate there Joe, and it is no longer a restaurant I believe, but rotating is probably a better visual than culinary experience!

 

[D&A]

Tim as you noticed, letting VR settle down whenever possible before firing the shot, can often make a noticable difference. Thats why personally I turn VR off if I know I'm going to take a burst of consecutive shots, such as I often do in low light concert work. Years ago, just after Nikon released it's 1st VR lens, I learned this lesson the hard way by taking a burst of shots of a well know performer with VR on. I was horified to say the least, when later on I noticed the majority of these shots had a jittery slightly blurred look to them...a bit more on one side than the other. I think Nikon has reworked and imporved (internally) the VR mechanism a number of times and this sort of thing is partially minimized. Still letting VR settle down with a half press of the shutter (or focus) button is an important step to follow.

Dave (D&A)