View Full Version : Testing AF-S
Had some time to kill before the kids arrived at the bus stop so I headed for one of the local tourist traps to see if the 70-200VR AF-S was a good as they say.
Lighting conditions were crap, bright white birds, dappled sun, dark backgrounds the whole works so I went with Soccer settings Jpeg, auto ISO, Aperture exposure and minimum shutter 1/1000.
Some of these are fairly extreme crops.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2651/3864707876_d0ea8ea446_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2503/3863918799_84a8f7609f_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2619/3863925567_4e1b5b699f_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2464/3864696592_2d6e463492_b.jpg
In Australia this is called, "going the tongue". :D
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/3864705256_6aed2af54f_b.jpg
and there were tousists (not sure which I actually dislike most the toursists or the Cockatoos, Cockatoos I think.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2495/3863933281_f7ac511d69_b.jpg
BikerJohn
08-28-2009, 07:30 AM
That is nice!
What aperture where you shooting at? And what percentage are the pictures? (how much did you crop - how much is extreme?)
Good stuff bro. The first shot almost looks like they were coming right at you
Good stuff bro. The first shot almost looks like they were coming right at you
They were almost they were flying to a guy standing about 1 metre to my left who had bird seed in his hand.
What aperture where you shooting at? And what percentage are the pictures? (how much did you crop - how much is extreme?)
Mainly f4
About 50% of the 75 I took were in focus. I think that the most heaviliy cropped shot here is number 3 and that would be maybe 30% of the original frame.
photowerkz
08-28-2009, 03:33 PM
Loving nr.1, 3 and 4. The first picture would have been awesome if the people hadn't been standing in the background. Love how the light hits just some of the birds. The 70-200VR looks like it's quite the performer!
Dread Pirate Roberts
08-28-2009, 06:50 PM
No 1 is a corker as is K1W1. Thanks for posting.
the guy on the bottom right, full wingspan, looks fantastic.
that 70-200 has completely destroyed your view of lens performance from now on. lol
Dread Pirate Roberts
08-28-2009, 07:06 PM
You've become the master of post processing, sometimes referred to as - the postmaster general:D
yeah, mono conversions are REAL hard. lol
look at my cloning of the people on the right about a third of the way up. :p
Dread Pirate Roberts
08-28-2009, 07:09 PM
The trick I've found to cloning is use a big brush often 200-300 pixels (just smaller than the area) and turn down the hardness to around 40.
I wasn't entirely kidding, seeing the possibility, executing the frame and cloning the people is all good stuff that I didn't manage. The obvious clone is the only defect but for someone else's photo who would expect more.
thanks mate, i'll try that.
i think the problem is my patience level...ie: i have none. if it doesn't work after like 30seconds, well screw it, i cant be bothered. spending more than a couple of minutes in post just really aggravates the crap outta me.
Dread Pirate Roberts
08-28-2009, 07:18 PM
Mate for 80 cents an image scan, trust me I don't spend ages on any cloning either.
this works too.
Stop freaking me out. I spent an afternoon on my back on a trolley at Wellington Hospital once and Alfred Hitchcocks "The Birds" was on the TV. Bad memories here. :)
Dread Pirate Roberts
08-28-2009, 07:34 PM
I spent an afternoon on my back on a trolley at Wellington Hospital once and Alfred Hitchcocks "The Birds" was on the TV.
A bike accident? Wrong way up for it to be a prostrate checkup;)
A bike accident? Wrong way up for it to be a prostrate checkup;)
How'd you guess.
Learner driver failing to give way (I may or may not have been riding a bit fast on a bike with suspect brakes). Broken wrist, broken knee cap and concussion.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3863911607_ec5fb8428e_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2663/3863915351_1949e8501d_b.jpg
that 70-200 has completely destroyed your view of lens performance from now on. lol
Oh yeah. Did I mention that my wife hates you now? :D
how does that 16-85 feel now ? lol
Do I own one of those? Must be buried somewhere in my camera bag. :D
Sir Les
08-28-2009, 08:28 PM
Oh yeah. Did I mention that my wife hates you now? :D
Never mind the wife -- that lens takes such beautiful photos that if it were mine, it might just replace the wife in the love department! :)
Seriously, those pics are an absolute pleasure to look at. Fantastic work.
The trick I've found to cloning is use a big brush often 200-300 pixels (just smaller than the area) and turn down the hardness to around 40.
If youre talking about the Clone Stamp Tool, the best way is to use a smaller brush and zoom in to about 600%, this way you can see the pixels and see what your cloning. Using a larger brush zoomed out wont let you see the tiny details.
The best advice I can give for the tougher editing is to learn to use the Quick Mask mode.
Dread Pirate Roberts
08-28-2009, 10:41 PM
I hear what you're saying Jason, but to fix a gross defect I use the big brush very successfully - the eye notices repetetive pixels easily and by using a big brush you don't repeat much. At some point going to a small brush is appropriate.
I always feel pretty good about my Sigma until I see someones first shots from the 70-200 :'( . I woulda never opened this thread had I known the contents lol..
Cyberwlf
08-30-2009, 11:04 AM
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=48511&stc=1&d=1251511206
this works too.
Talk about a dramatic image, wow.
Cyberwlf
08-30-2009, 11:11 AM
I will on the 18th September (pay day!) have the cash for either a 24-70 or 70-200 VR. My problem is working out which to go for, both are similarly priced, but they are two opposite focal ranges. I find myself primarily taking photographs within the 17-70 range, but like what I see others do with a 70-200 (also watched Nikon TV's advice on picking lenses, which seems to favour the 70-200).
I am also able to afford a 50mm 1.4G (at which point i'd be looking to sell my 1.8D), so maybe just having the 50 would cover shorter focal lengths with an IQ similar to the 24-70 and I could supplement the 50 1.4G with a 70-200?
Anyone got suggestions? :)
liljoejoe54
08-30-2009, 12:45 PM
Very nice pics!
Cyberwlf
08-31-2009, 03:31 AM
I will on the 18th September (pay day!) have the cash for either a 24-70 or 70-200 VR. My problem is working out which to go for, both are similarly priced, but they are two opposite focal ranges. I find myself primarily taking photographs within the 17-70 range, but like what I see others do with a 70-200 (also watched Nikon TV's advice on picking lenses, which seems to favour the 70-200).
I am also able to afford a 50mm 1.4G (at which point i'd be looking to sell my 1.8D), so maybe just having the 50 would cover shorter focal lengths with an IQ similar to the 24-70 and I could supplement the 50 1.4G with a 70-200
Another aspect I forgot to mention is the ability to hand hold the lens would still be desirable and the 70-200 may be too big a lens to do this with and i guess requires a tripod often?
Anyone got suggestions on this?
70-200 may be too big a lens to do this with and i guess requires a tripod often?
Anyone got suggestions on this?
You what?
Tripod?
What the hell is a tripod and why would you want to use one when you have two perfectly good arms and a lens with VR?
toriaj
08-31-2009, 01:28 PM
Kiwi, what's the longest shutter speed you successfully use with it at 200mm? (I realize that with sports, often the motion blur is the key point, not camera shake, but still.) You're still on a crop body, right?
Cyberwlf
08-31-2009, 03:04 PM
You what?
Tripod?
What the hell is a tripod and why would you want to use one when you have two perfectly good arms and a lens with VR?
Heh, thanks. I have no real life experience with a 70-200 yet to comment on how it is to use day to day, I am aware the new VR II compensates even further for camera blur but don't know how practical it is never the less to hand hold, especially compared to the 24-70.
I was really only kidding about the tripod. I haven't used the lens for much other than sports because I haven't had much chance to do anything else the last couple of weekends. If you have good technique and a shooting at a comfortable angle I can't see why you couldn't get a decent shot at 1/200 or maybe even a bit slower. I will have a play later in the week and see if I can get anything acceptable. Even though the lens is way heavier than anything else I have used I find the balance to be so much better than I actually don't notice the weight.
Cyberwlf
08-31-2009, 03:59 PM
Yeah I figured you were kidding :)
But yeah seen the 24-70 and realise it is a fair bit of weight, but realise the 70-200 is heavier but has the bonus over the 24-70 of having VR. Thing is i dont own a good tripod yet, so my only real option is to use gear hand held so maybe the 70-200 would be better hand held, purely due to the VR aspect of it.
The 24-70 might not have VR, but its only 70mm on the long end opposed to 200 for the VR. Thats a big difference when it comes to camera shake.... ALOT easier to hand hold 70mm than 200mm.
Dread Pirate Roberts
09-01-2009, 06:03 AM
You can test handholding with your 18-200VR.
Assuming you shoot at F7.1 with the 18-200 (since it's crap below that) then you could get optically better photos at F2.8 with the 70-200 and have a shutter speed about 2 times faster (ie half the shake).
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.