As promised, a few words and pictures from the lens’ outing into the field. Although, not actually a field, more of a hotel to start with.
After spending a few days getting acquainted with the lens it was soon time to really throw some work at at. This opportunity, if you like, was perhaps the biggest wedding booking we have this year. Not a time for anything to go wrong, which is why backups are carried including a borrowed 80-200 f2.8 that I am familiar with.
As well as providing as chance to see the lens perform in a situation where the shot matters more than the technical aspects behind it, it was also a chance to do some comparison test shots with previous wedding on high constrast subjects such as the brides dress next to the grooms darker attire and it also provided an excellent test for the VR with the low tungsten and mixed lighting areas used in the ceremony and reception venue.
My second camera assistant was shooting with a non-VR 80-200 f2.8 lens, and not having VR limited his available settings in the low light. The result of this was that the ISO was bumped up higher on his camera than I was able to work with. Of course, using Nikon’s latest cameras, this isn’t the problem it once was. When shooting at the same ISO I was able to get good results using upto 1/30th and frequently 1/60th second, which with a lens of this size, length and weight is excellent. He was stuck with bumping the ISO up higher to get a usable 1/125th at 200mm, and ideally would have liked to be working with a faster speed than that.
Of course, our subjects were fairly stationery during the service, but humans move all the time at amounts that maybe are unperceptible to the human eye and so my ISO went up to enable me to shoot at 1/60th minimum.
Using the VR did enable me to have more options of movement and position and I didn’t need to rest it on a mono-pod or tripod. Although, with the combined weight of the lens and body a mono-pod would have been a good idea anyway. That is perhaps one of things about this lens – the VR is useful, but given the weight of the thing, you’ll probably end up with a mono-pod or tripod anyway! I had left mine in the car before the ceremony begun and wasn’t in a position to retrieve it, so I paid the price with a sore shoulder for a day or two!
This is a big and heavy lens. I have been advised, talking to some fellow professionals, that its sits better on the D3 as it has better balance against the weight of the lens. With this in mind, it might be preferable to use the D300 or D700 with the additional optional battery grip. It’s certainly something I am considering at the moment, although that will again add weight to the object hanging around my neck or in my hand.
While on the subject of tripod use with this lens, the collar provided is brilliant. The quick but secure double detach foot is a design of genious. I am very impressed and would like to see the collar repeated on several lenses so that the foot could remain on the ‘pod and the lenses slotted into it in an interchangeable matter (are you listening Nikon? You got something right so please repeat the effort elsewhere).
The detachable foot means that moving from tripod to handheld and back again is a joy. It certainly speeds things up, and makes using the lenses handheld a lot more confortable.
Now, for actual performance from the optics:
I am impressed, this could well become a favourite lens. Not having the Nano coating has been moaned at by some, and there are calls for an update for this lens with the new coating added – don’t be so quick I’d say. There is no way you can use a UV filter with the nano coated lens. Even the top quality UV filters cause image degradation, loss of colour clarity, and a significant reduction in sharpness on the Nano coated lenses. The same filter on the 70-200 has, it would appear, no discernible effect. This means you can, if you want, put one on as protection against the front element becoming damaged. Of course, its an option only but as this lens sticks out so damned far in front of you, it is one to consider.
I have not tried other filters with the Nano coated optics but I do wonder what effect the nano-coating has on polarisers etc? If you have any experience of this please feel free to comment and share any info.
During the wedding shoot I used the lens for both inside and outside shots. The VR certainly assisted during the inside shots, and possibly helped retain that extra level of sharpness when handholding outside too. I can’t really say, I turned it on and left it on for the duration. It can however slow the focussing and I noticed this with some practice sessions the day before. If I really wanted to make the most of the AF-S then I needed to turn the VR off, this means you end up with a compromise of having it faster than an AF-D but slower than pure AF-S if you want VR. Turn the VR off and its noticeably quicker, but of course you are then subject perhaps to some motion induced blur. A lot would depend on your individual hand holding abilities and how much practice you have had with lenses of this length and weight.
I think I would still rather use a tripod than VR, and readers of this blog know only too well exactly what I think of tripods!
Here are some images from the wedding so you can see what the quality results are like. All images were taken on a Nikon D700 set to run AUTO ISO (I use this for weddings and have found it really useful with one proviso – set your own limits as to where it can go using the custom menus). Otherwise it’s one less thing to worry about, when the shot counts you don’t have always have time to be messing with heaps of controls and settings. That glance, the look, the turn of head, the smile….they will be gone quicker than you can move a few knobs or press buttons. It’s the ‘desisive moment’ – and auto ISO does help you get it. But I only use it for weddings when I know I will have to move from one light source to another, quickly, and frequently.
I don’t like to trust technology to make decisions for me, and have been known to turn if off once the trickier sections are done with. In this instance, I left it on, because the day was bright and sunny with high contrast outside, lots of shaded area, very low light and mixed sources inside and a requirement for me to be inside and then outside and then back inside again throughout the day at the drop of a hat.
Anyway, enough from me, here are some sample shots:
Bride arrives with her father
The look; the significant moment or expression that you must capture
The ability to capture detail in very difficult lighting conditions is one of the outstanding features of this lens.
The ability to shoot at 2.8 enabled the background to be thrown completely out of focus on a number of shots isolating everything from the background to emphasise the significance of the placing the brides hand into that of the grooms. The length of the 200m zoom allowed even to the wording on the order of service read over a guests shoulder from the balcony above!
So, how do we some up the thoughts on this lens after brief but vital use?
Is the lens worth the money for an upgrade from the 80-200 2.8?
Well, probably not. UNLESS you shoot in low light, a lot. Or, a lot of moving subjects where focus speed is important. Or from a moving vehicle where active VR might be useful [more of that later].
Is is any sharper than the 80-200 2.8?
No, I don’t think its optically any better at all. In fact, on occassion I would have to site a preference for the rendition of the images from the older lens. Perhaps its the older coatings but I liked the colour rendition of the 80-200 rather a lot and this one seems a bit colder (?) to me.
Does it focus faster being AF-S?
Yes, there is a significant improvement over the AF-D focussing, especially in different conditions. But, it’s not perfect and I can still make it hunt if I really want to (or at least I have found it hunt a few times)*.
Is it worth the trade up from a consumer or slower lens – say the 70-300 VR?
That depends. If you have a camera that can cope with a ramped up ISO, such as the D300/D700/D3 then possibly not. Not for low light work anyway. If however you like to use f2.8, f4 etc for isolating details, throwing the background out of focus etc, then yes, its worth every penny.
Is is worth the money?
Now that is the million dollar, or in this case £1500, question. The answer is tricky. If you have the money lying about, then spend it, you won’t regret it. This is a fine lens built to excellent quality standards that will last you for many years, although it will require servicing and it probably not as robust as some of its predicessors. I am always concerned that the more feature something has, the more things there are to go wrong with it. This lens is built in Japan, so unlike with a lot of Nikon’s recent lenses, the quality control should be superb.
Are you earning, or expecting to earn money, from your photography? If the answer is yes, then yes it is worth every penny of the £1500. As a professional, or even semi-professional where image quality is important then the best is only good enough. It will also look much more professional when you turn up to face your client than a lens anyone can buy for a couple of hundred from Dixons.
But, if the budget is tight then the 80-200 f2.8 will serve just as well and cost you around half if not a third of the price. Bare in mind that you can only get these used now, usually as result of someone trading them in for the 70-200 in fact.
In conclusion I have to say that had I not lost my 80-200 in the incident with the cliff, then I would probably not have bought this lens. The 80-200 2.8 AFD, with its accepted limitations, did everything I needed it to do. If I was in a position where I had £1500 burning a hole in my pocket (a position I would rather like to find myself in once in a while but rarely do it has to be said) then I still would think twice. I would probably go with a couple of other lenses I quite fancy first, or possibly put it towards another D700 body if I’m honest. This lens would not have been a priority purchase unless I found myself with a need to replace the 80-200. Which of course, is exactly why I got this lens.
Right now, if I found £1500 lurking about needing a good home, then I would firstly pay for a holiday (I need a holiday), and I would take a new Sigma 105 f2.8 Macro with me. I have a real longing for one of these beauties. There have been several occassions when a macro would have come in real handy recently and I would like to do some personal macro work with one just for interest too.
As the insurance company paid for it, and I am sure they will ensure that they extract the money back from me in increased premiums as a result, then I have to say I am delighted with my new lens. I like it very much, it will become a favourite quite possibly and it will get lots of use, but as I said above – if I still had my 80-200 f2.8 then I probably would have stuck with it. Probably…
*techniques for reducing lens hunt include the fake focus technique – this is where you pick a subject with more contrast that the lens can use to focus on, that is at the same distance as the subject you actually want to take the shot of, then use the focus lock and recompose. It works a treat so long as you are fairly accurate in your estimation of distance (and yes women can do this) AND keep to f5.6 or higher to be on the safe side. If you can absolutely sure of the distance, such as moving the lens only very slightly to one side or the other, then f4 is perfectly good but I really wouldn’t risk f2.8 unless I was absolutely certain and really needed that short depth of field.
ADDITIONAL: In the field, literally.
After I started writing the above I did do some work outside, in a field, with this lens. I also took it to a wildlife part and tried its active mode from a land rover.
The VR Active is claimed to enable you to shoot from a moving vehicle and whilst this is certainly true it doesn’t hold up to my expections here. It’s still far better to stop the truck. Yes, you get usuable shots you would have otherwise missed, but they are usable. They are not perfectly sharp and if you can stop the truck, then stop the truck. It works better when shooting from the rear or the front of the vehicle. When shooting from a side window, I think that the lens thinks your panning, so it doesn’t do its job as well because it thinks you want some motion blur in it. The panning issue has been raised on a number of sites and whilst initially it seems like a good thing, the concensus seems to be that we would like an over-ride button where we tell the lens if we are planning.
Results in the field were interesting:
Initial shots were impressive, but I did notice that it was terribly prone to flare and ghosting when used wide open, or wide open (resulting in 5.6) with a 2x teleconverter. Using the hood made no difference in the instance and the conditions I was working under. Shots with the sun at a 45degree angle proved fine but shots with the sun behind the subject, but obscured by a building so not directly visible were terrible. The whole image lacks definition as you can see.
Here the sun was behind the building, this image is full frame and straight from the NEF RAW image converted to a JPEG and resized with no other adjustments
Applying some simple adjustments in Photoshop does help the image (see below), but I am still a little unhappy with the results. This shot is also at a slightly different angle, although it should actually create more of a problem given the location of the sun at the time. As you can see, the sun and sky are not in the shots at all.
Dropping the converter also helps (again, result below):
I can only assume that fully open, the converter magnifies the effect of the flare as well as the subject.
This was the first time I had used the converter (a Teleplus 300 PRO DG 2x) with the lens and can at least report that VR etc all continue to function, which is certainly a bonus here.
I will repeat the experiment on the same subject at a different time of day when the sun is not so low in the sky [provided I catch them before they fledge]. These shots were all taken in the early evening following a very hot and sunny day, although the light had dropped sufficiently and the location shaded enough to warrant an ISO of 800 in order to get a usuable shutter speed with this length of lens (200mm/300mm with converter) at f5.6
I also intend, weather permitting, to take the lens for a trial run with some other interesting subjects and locations over the coming week and will keep you all posted as to my observations and results.
It is also possible that using a UV filter could be making matters worse. As you can see from my post of using UV filters I am more than a little sceptical about them.
Now, if someone would like to sponsor me with a nice 500mm lens I could really have some fun….
