{"id":275,"date":"2006-11-06T23:27:43","date_gmt":"2006-11-06T14:27:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/regex.info\/blog\/2006-11-06\/275"},"modified":"2007-12-18T23:36:44","modified_gmt":"2007-12-18T14:36:44","slug":"nikon-70-200-f28-vr-lens","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/regex.info\/blog\/2006-11-06\/275","title":{"rendered":"Nikon 70-200 f\/2.8 VR Lens"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
<\/a>Nikon AF-S 70-200 f\/2.8 VR on my Nikon D200<\/big><\/div>\n\n

\nI recently bought three new lenses for my Nikon D200<\/a>. In my previous<\/span> post, I told of<\/span> the Sigma 30mm f\/1.4<\/a> that had\nsuch horrible focus problems that I had<\/span> to return and reorder it. Today I\nwrite<\/span> about the Nikon\n70<\/span>-200mm f\/2.8G IF AF-S VR<\/a> that I finally<\/span> received on Saturday. <\/p>\n\n

I should mention my mindset before receiving this lens. Other than the\nshort stint with the Sigma 30mm, I've had just one lens since getting the\nD200 in January, the Nikon\n18<\/span>-200 f\/3.5-5.6 VR<\/a>. It's quite<\/span> a bit<\/span> thicker and longer than a\nstandard<\/span> SLR 50mm lens, and with its lens hood it looks all the bigger, so\nI tended<\/span> to “feel like a pro<\/span>” with it. Well, at least I thought<\/span> that I\nlooked<\/span> like one.<\/p>\n\n

I knew the 70-200 on order was a bit<\/span> bigger because at f\/2.8, it lets in\nfour times the amount of light at 200mm than the 18-200 at its f\/5.6. But nothing<\/span> prepared me for pulling it out of the box. My first<\/span> impression was\nthat I was<\/span> sent a telephone<\/span> pole by mistake, it was so long and heavy.<\/p>\n\n

<\/a>My old Nikon 18<\/span>-200 f\/3.5-5.6 VR aboveMy new Nikon 70<\/span>-200 f\/2.8 VR below<\/big><\/div>\n\n\n\n

The specs say that it's three pounds, which sounds like nothing, but\nafter giving it a try<\/span> for just one or two minutes, my left arm was really\ntired. I'm wimpy, but not that much<\/i> of a wimp.<\/span> Perhaps they filled\nit with concrete by mistake?<\/p>\n\n

And the length — it's huge! Not “huge” like the\nmassive lenses that sports and wildlife photographers use, but it's much\nlonger than I expected.<\/span> I'd bought<\/span> a camera<\/span> bag the other day for it,\ngetting a bag<\/span> larger than I thought<\/span> I'd need, but it turns out that the bag\nis too small and I can't<\/span> use it with this lens. Oops!<\/p>\n\n

This lens forced me to put the strap back on my camera. Generally, I find that<\/span> a camera<\/span> strap just gets in the way — the 18-200 is so\nlight that I don't<\/span> mind just carrying the camera most of the time, or\nputting it into a small<\/span> camera bag for longer periods of disuse. I didn't<\/span>\nhave a camera<\/span> bag that could hold the new lens, and I had<\/span> no intention of\ncarrying it the whole time, so I put<\/span> the strap back on so that I could<\/span>\nsling the camera\/lens across my back while walking.<\/p>\n\n

(Is it just me, or do others wish that the strap attach points were on\nthe back plane of the camera, rather than the front? If they were<\/span> on the\nback plane, the camera would lie flat against you rather than tipped at an\nodd angle.)<\/p>\n\n

Testing The Lens<\/b><\/big><\/p>\n\n

Anthony wanted to go to the playground, so I thought<\/span> it'd be a great<\/span>\nchance to test the lens. For the most<\/span> part, I kept the<\/span> aperture at f\/2.8\nso that I could<\/span> play with the shallow depth of field, and test the\nfocus.<\/p>\n\n

<\/a>\nNikon D200 + Nikkor 70<\/span>-200\/2.8 VR   —   70mm f\/2.8, 1\/320th<\/sup><\/sub> sec, ISO 100Anthony is about 4 meters (13 feet) away<\/span><\/div>\n\n

This next shot is a lady getting into a taxi<\/span> near the playground. It's not much<\/span> of a picture,<\/span> but somehow the smoothness of it really looks nice\nto me:<\/p>\n\n

<\/a>\nNikon D200 + Nikkor 70<\/span>-200\/2.8 VR   —   200mm f\/3.2, 1\/350th<\/sup><\/sub> sec, ISO 100Lady is about 12 meters (40 feet) away<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Looking at the full size image (click on the pic above, or here<\/a>) shows a lot<\/span> of detail\nin her kimono and purse, and the out of focus green in the background just\nseems really nice.<\/p>\n\n

The next image reminded me that even with a fast<\/span> lens and fast shutter\nspeed, you have to watch out for subject movement. The shutter<\/span> speed was a\nfairly<\/span> zippy 1\/800th<\/sup><\/sub> of a second,<\/span> yet there's still\nquite a bit<\/span> of movement in Anthony's fingers as he slaps the sand mold\nover. The tips of<\/span> his fingers look to move about a centimeter<\/span> during the\nexposure, which would place their speed at 8 meters\/sec, or just a bit<\/span>\nshort of 18 miles per hour. Fast fingers!<\/p>\n\n

<\/a>\nNikon D200 + Nikkor 70<\/span>-200\/2.8 VR   —   135mm f\/2.8, 1\/800th<\/sup><\/sub> sec, ISO 100Subject is about 2.5 meters (7.5 feet) away<\/span><\/div>\n\n

A Touch<\/span> of Rear Focus<\/b><\/big><\/p>\n\n

Unfortunately, the lens is not without its problems. It has rear<\/span> focus,\nwhich means that the actual point in focus is a few<\/span> inches behind where it\nthinks it's setting the focus. It's not a<\/span> problem for shots of distant\nsubjects, nor for shots with relatively small (high “f” number) apertures,\nbut it manifested itself many times during our trip to the playground.<\/p>\n\n

Here's a perfect example:<\/p>\n\n

<\/a>\nNikon D200 + Nikkor 70<\/span>-200\/2.8 VR   —   95mm f\/2.8, 1\/350th<\/sup><\/sub> sec, ISO 100Subject is about 2.6 meters (8.5 feet) away<\/span><\/div>\n\n

It's a nice picture, showing his inside-out shirt (he dressed himself)\nand a somewhat<\/span> serious face, but unfortunatly, it's not in focus.<\/p>\n\n

The focus point was his left eye, so the eyes should certainly be in\nfocus. With these lens parameters, the field of acceptable focus should\nextend about 1.6 inches in front and 1.6 inches behind, for a total<\/span> depth\nof field of 3.2 inches encompassing his nose and sideburns. However, a 100<\/span>%\ncrop shows the eyes and nose out of focus, with his sideburns and parts of\nhis ear in focus.<\/p>\n\n

100% crop from the image above<\/big><\/div>\n\n

By the way, the “3.2 inches” number I cite<\/span> for the depth of\nfield is necessarily an approximation. The focus<\/span> deteriorates any distance\nfrom the focus point — the entire concept of “depth of\nfield” is about how much out-of-focus blur is considered acceptable\nfor common uses, such as in viewing an 8x10 at arm's length. Blowing up the\nsame image to a wall<\/span>-sized print would place a higher<\/span> demand on sharpness,\nthereby substantially shortening what is considered the depth of field.\n\n<\/p>

\n\nFor those interested, Wikipedia has a lot of info about depth\nof field<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n\n

Here's another example. The truck<\/span> is the focus point:<\/p>\n\n

<\/a>\nNikon D200 + Nikkor 70<\/span>-200\/2.8 VR   —   200mm f\/2.8, 1\/1,000th<\/sup><\/sub> sec, ISO 100Subject is about 10 meters (33 feet) away<\/span><\/div>\n
100% crop from the image above<\/big><\/div>\n\n

The depth of field in this case is about 10.8 inches (from 5.3 inches in\nfront of the focus point to 5.5 inches behind). The truck<\/span> seems to be just\nshy of the near edge, with the sand just behind it starting to look really\nsharp.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n

And one more example, with the leaf in the center being the focus point:<\/p>\n\n

<\/a>\nNikon D200 + Nikkor 70<\/span>-200\/2.8 VR   —   110mm f\/2.8, 1\/800th<\/sup><\/sub> sec, ISO 100Subject is about 6 meters (20 feet) away<\/span><\/div>\n
100% crop from the image above<\/big><\/div>\n\n

The depth of field here is about 12.7 inches (6.2 inches in front; 6.5\ninches behind), and the leaf is clearly not quite in it.<\/p>\n\n

I need to do some more tests to make sure that the problem is not\nsomething as simple as the camera latching onto something different from\nwhat I think<\/span> it's latching onto, or movement on my part between the focus\nand the shot, but at this point it seems that I'll have to send this in to\nNikon for adjustment.<\/p>\n\n

Update:<\/b>\nIn trying to understand the focus issues, I designed<\/span> an\nAutofocus Test Chart<\/a> that fixed the deficiencies I found<\/span> in the other test charts\nI tried.<\/span> In the end<\/span>, I did send<\/span> the lens back to Nikon. It took two<\/span> tries, but Nikon finally fixed it<\/a>.\n\n<\/p>\n\n

<\/a>Ugh!<\/big><\/div>\n\n

Wishing for Focus Problems<\/b><\/big><\/p>\n\n\n

On the way home, we came across this, er, style abomination while\nwaiting to cross the street. Like passing roadkill on the highway, I\ncouldn't<\/span> help myself but to look.\n\n<\/p>

\n\nI found myself wishing<\/i> for focus problems <\/b><\/p>\n\n

Unfortunately, not even the fuzzy hat is a focus<\/span> problem — her\nsense of style is really that bad.<\/p>\n\n
\n\n

I don't want to end with that picture, so I'll end with another picture of the beefy, hunky lens:<\/p>\n\n

<\/a><\/div>\n\n