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

[tashley]

I've noticed that when this lens is good it is really pretty good, but that there are a disappointing (about 1/2 or more) proportion of longer (70mm and up) shots where the results are possibly useable but not quite as sharp as you know they can be.

My shooting method has varied. Always with VR on (normal not active) but with the auto ISO setup at either regular, fast or faster settings. I began to suspect that the VR on this is not as good as for example the 70-200VRII which is almost always super sharp,

Did a bunch of quick shots in very real world conditions today, mostly just jpeg to make it quicker.

Method: choose a scene (some far, some middle some distant) and with the camera set to manual and the lens to 120mm and f5.6. Let the ISO fluctuate to get exposure right. Auto focus on the sort of scene elements that won't get tricked then switch to MF. Take ten frames at 1/125th with VR on and ten frames with VR off and 1/500th.

1/500th is two stops over focal length whereas the claim for the VRII in this lens is that it can give you 'up to four stops' improvement, which would be equivalent to shooting a frame at 1/125th and getting the stability of 1/2000th.

I don't think so.

The shots at 1/500th with no VR were not all perfect but they were all between usable wonderful. Whereas almost none of the shots at 1/125th and VR on were wonderful and by no means all were useable.

I alternated sets: some VR on first sequence, some no VR first. I shot some with the camera kept to the eye, some with the camera resting by my side between frames. Some were pointed upwards and some straight ahead. etc etc etc. And I think I have proved that the VR is not as useful by any means as the use of a simple high shutter speed.

Next test will be a hybrid: try VR on with a shutter speed of one stop better than 1/f and compare to 2 stops better with no VR.

I have long suspected that some VR systems turn a four or five pixel motion blur into a one pixel blur, but also turn a no-pixel blur into a one pixel blur. That doesn't seem to be the case with the 70-200, which also has VRII, but I do expect to find that the best way of getting optimal results on the E with the 24-120 will be either tripod (in which case I'd likely be using a good prime) or to use two to three stops of shutter speed better than 1/f.

I will report back! And would love to hear if anyone else has an opinion or experience here.

 

[gustavo]

tim, very interesting.
i´m waiting for your next report. 24/70 and 105vr or 24/120vr and 85 1.8 is a difficult decision for me, and key is how far in IQ is the 24/120vr to the 24/70.

 

[D&A]

Tim, don"t quote me just yet, but I recall reading/hearing somewheres that with certain VR lenses while shooting with VR on while using shutter speeds that are greatly above the reciprocal of the focal length used, has in some cases caused degradation of the image vs. not using VR at all ( but using the same camera/lens settings while mounted on a tripod). For some reason it only applied to certain VR lenses. Additionally, for mid range zooms, unless I am strictly hand holding or using a monopod, I almost never use VR in conjunction with a tripod..no matter what the VR setting is set to or Nikon says about that particular lens. I personally have found a bit too much variability from image to image.

As useful and wonderful as VR is, I've also found at times, I simply prefer it to be off, unless it's going to be a distinct advantage. I've often seen one too many usual image anomalies that I didn't have an explanation for. In many of these circumstances, I've either hand held or used a monopod and fired bursts with VR off..which in many cases provided much more satisfactory results. Again it all depended on the shooting circumstance.

Dave (D&A)

 

[tashley]

Joe, I've never had the 24-70 but there are plenty of people around who were unimpressed with the 24-120 on previous cameras but find it surprisingly good on the 800s, whilst feeling a bit let down by the 24-70.

The only clear guide will be someone who has done good tests on both lenses on the d800/e but I personally think the 24-120 does a pretty good job, often really very sharp, and when I get to the bottom of the VR issues, I will I think get a very good hit rate with it!

 

[D&A]

To add to this conversation.....I too am one who was unimpressed with the performance of the 24-120 f4 VR lens on the D700 and D3s...yet have been surprised at the # of individuals who say the performance of this lens is somehow improved when used on the D800. What accounts for this is a mystery to me. As Joe has expressed, on the D700/D3s, the 24-70 f2.8 is far superior..assuming one has a goiod sample. Apparently there is a fair amount of variability in samples of this lens. I seen this 1st hand.

What I've taken away so far is apparently some lenses that have performed better on the D700/D3s haven't always performed at the same level when used on the D800...yet on the other hand, there appears to be a handfull of lenses that may actually perform at a higher level on the D800 when compared to their use on a lower MP full frame body. Additional testing and investigation into all these observations will need to be evaluated in the coming months.

The issue with certain Zeiss primes on the D800 isn't their resolution/sharpness performance across the frame, but somewhat excessive CA, something Nikon seems to have a slightly better handle on controlling it. Of course it's on a case by case (lens by lens) basis.

Dave (D&A)

 

[tashley]

To add to this conversation.....I too am one who was unimpressed with the performance of the 24-120 f4 VR lens on the D700 and D3s...yet have been surprised at the # of individuals who say the performance of this lens is somehow improved when used on the D800. What accounts for this is a mystery to me. As Joe has expressed, on the D700/D3s, the 24-70 f2.8 is far superior..assuming one has a goiod sample. Apparently there is a fair amount of variability in samples of this lens. I seen this 1st hand.

What I've taken away so far is apparently some lenses that have performed better on the D700/D3s haven't always performed at the same level when used on the D800...yet on the other hand, there appears to be a handfull of lenses that may actually perform at a higher level on the D800 when compared to their use on a lower MP full frame body. Additional testing and investigation into all these observations will need to be evaluated in the coming months.

The issue with certain Zeiss primes on the D800 isn't their resolution/sharpness performance across the frame, but somewhat excessive CA, something Nikon seems to have a slightly better handle on controlling it. Of course it's on a case by case (lens by lens) basis.

Dave (D&A)

Yup I agree: the 100mm makro planar f2 has more fringing than Tina Turner's hairstyle.

 

[tashley]

Right, I have been banging off occasional tests for days now and trying to narrow down what it is that has me doubting and testing and I sort of think I've almost got it.

Preliminary findings...

The less than perfect results I've been getting, followed by the tests I've done imply that:

(and all these apply to just the 120mm end of the zoom, I haven't tested all variable at all focal lengths)

Don't use 'Active' under normal conditions. I knew I shouldn't but thought I'd try it to see if there was any improvement and actually it makes things worse.

For shots at or over 1/500th don't use VR at all

For shots at closer range up to say about 3-5 metres, 1/125th plus VR gives about the same results as 1/500th without and beats 1/250th without. So the value of VR here is about two stops. In any event you can't shoot with absolute 100% reliability at 1/125th with OR with 1/500th without. It's as close about 85% reliable though, especially at 50% on screen.

In summary here, to be really sure of getting it right, go for a shutter speed of 2 stops of focal length PLUS VR (e.g. for a 120mm focal length go for a 250th shutter speed PLUS VR) or three and a half to four stops of focal length (e.g. for a 120mm focal length go for 1/750th or 1/1000th) without VR but you can lose a stop of shutter speed to either of those without impacting things very much.

At longer focal subject distances it is harder to work out what is going on: AF seems a touch less accurate at distance (contrast tends to be lower here I suspect) but the bigger factor is that camera movement seems a little magnified. So to be 100% sure I would use LV to focus, on a tripod, with MUP, at 1/500th. However, given that this is really a convenience lens and not so likely to be used with a tripod, I would make very sure I was using centre point AF and choosing an unambiguous part of the subject to focus on. For example, a strong pattern where the focus point is surrounded by planar subject by at least one times its width in each direction beyond its boundary. Then I would make sure I was using at least a 500th without VR and preferably at least 1/250th (but no more than 1/500th) with VR.

The good news is that on centre even at f5.6 and F8 when properly focussed and stabilised, the lens is pretty darned good. At F8 and assuming a print density of 200DPI or higher, you can even just about get sharp enough edges for a good print.

In fact, when I set this lens to 100MM and shot it against the Zeiss 100 F2 Makro Planar at distance and at F5.6 and then viewed the results at 50% (so equivalent to a 200dpi print) the sharpness was not quite as good as the Zeiss, and neither was the micro contrast, but the overall effect was same ballpark on centre with the added benefit that the CA and fringing is dealt with for you, whereas as with the Zeiss, even at this aperture, it is still a real problem.

 

[D&A]

Tim, your observations regarding use of VR along with high shutter speeds of 1/500 seems to correlate what I've heard from others...especially in mid-range telephoto lenses....that simply it more often causes degredation and lowering of image quality than actually helping. This often is accentuated if using a tripod. Not sure if it has to do with the occilation or frequency of VR combined with the speed of the shutter in these circumstances or something entirely different. The exception to this generalized observation seems to be with the long supertelephoto's. Excellent tests...thanks!

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

In the Old days with Canon be it on tripod or monopod I always turned IS off. I always got far better results. I'm really not that big a fan on VR and IS myself but that's me and usually I have support with me. I can see the value though on a walk around lens but I do remember one Of the canon tech guys explaining when supported take off the IS. Sounds like nothing has changed.

 

[Steen]

Thom Hogan has this 'tutorial' on the use of VR:

Nikon VR explained

 

[Jack]

That surprises me. Perhaps I had a bad copy of the 24-120mm VR. With Nikon's mass produced lenses, it's not unusual to have a high degree of variability.



I agree. My experience with the 24-120mm was poor. I'll keep my powder dry until the tests are done. In the meantime, I'm going to use 2-3 primes (Zeiss and Nikon).

Joe

Note there are three versions of the 24-120, and two versions have VR -- one is variable aperture and the latest is fixed f4 aperture. It's the fixed f4 aperture that is pretty decent across the range. Not perfect, not as good as a prime, but definitely decent. The variable aperture versions have a poor rep.

 

[Jack]

Thom Hogan has this 'tutorial' on the use of VR:

Nikon VR explained

Steen, excellent link and explanations, thanks for sharing it!

 

[D&A]

Thom Hogan has this 'tutorial' on the use of VR:

Nikon VR explained

Thanks Steen! I hadn't seen his tutuoral in quiet some time but now that I had a quick look, I beleive it was one of the sources I was thinking of when I mentioned in my post above of occuring issues of using VR combined with use of high shutter speeds. Specifically, where using a shutter speed of 1/500 or greater along with "normal" VR, causes issues with image degredation. He cites of course many other useful tips and precautions regarding VR use and settings.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I'll take a read and get up to Nikons VR stuff. Looking at my bag though I don't have a VR lens YET. Heck that will change trust me. LOL

 

[gustavo]

Tim, excellent test and advice. Thank you. so apparently the 24-120f/4 vr could be a descent alternative to the 24-70 to cover the all-around midrange zoom.

About the Zeiss lenses performance with the d800: do you know if the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ZE has the same problem that you have found in the 100 Makro Planar?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Its that or the 200 F2

 

[tashley]

Some additional info that people might find useful. In summary it more or less shows that the main benefits of the 70-200 F2.8 over the 24-120 F4 (in their overlapping ranges) are less the optics and the AF (at least for static subjects!) than the VR.

I wasn't surprised by these tests because I've been shooting a lot with the 24-120 but some people might want to look twice!

These were ALL at f5.6 1/500th on a tripod with 3 second delay, VR off, LV focus. I tried to match the focal length in the shots of the two lenses at 70mm, 100mm and 120mm and then I chucked in a Zeiss Makro Planar 100mm shot with the same other parameters as a reference. All use sharpening at my standard deconvolution setting of 60/0.7/70/20 in LR4.1

70mm first: all pairs show the 70-200 then the 24-120.

next 120mm:

 

[tashley]

Now for the 100mm shots, first the Makro Planar, then the 70-200, then the 24-120..

All files at Tim Ashley Photography | D800 comparison files | _DSC0990

 

[tashley]

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:

Now at 1/250th the 70-200 followed by the 24-120:

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...

 

[BSEH]

J....... find it surprisingly good on the 800s, whilst feeling a bit let down by the 24-70.

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