Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
User review of new Nikon 24-70 f2.8VR
#21
Most tests do not include VR / IS / VC /OS effect. As Klaus said, it's difficult to find a fair testing method. The only test I see is getting one and comparing with a well-known lens.

 

What is easy to test: How well the lens recognize "I'm on tripod now", but I guess, that's close to impossible. The time is just too short to detect, decide and react. VR switched ON always means sort of attempting movement compensation.

 

What I also observe is a massive side jump of the VR (Nikon) when I release the first shot. I'd need to recheck but I think the difference between finder view before and after shot is less big with Sigma.

#22
Quote:The only test I see is getting one and comparing with a well-known lens.
 
 

I agree - and of course, I'd like to see tests on the field.

stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#23
Errrm, and you believe this....hmmmm...."review"...?

Really ?

 

LOL!

#24
Quote:Most tests do not include VR / IS / VC /OS effect. As Klaus said, it's difficult to find a fair testing method. The only test I see is getting one and comparing with a well-known lens.

 

What is easy to test: How well the lens recognize "I'm on tripod now", but I guess, that's close to impossible. The time is just too short to detect, decide and react. VR switched ON always means sort of attempting movement compensation.

 

What I also observe is a massive side jump of the VR (Nikon) when I release the first shot. I'd need to recheck but I think the difference between finder view before and after shot is less big with Sigma.
In my last test of Nikon 200-500 f5.6 i noticed that some photo with time around 1/1000s where probably afected from use of VR sistem. 
#25
Not again :wacko: . This pesty VR stuff appears to be a tiny bit overrated.

#26
Quote:Yawn. A 5 digit price tag isn't very high compared to the costs of deep space exploration. Yes, we got it you're working in a lab, Airy-discus. Don't need to tell every time lab stories. However we don't get it that you're getting there a five digit salary per month  ^_^ because then I could understand your diminishing attitude. Can I also apply of such a 5 digit job at Lensrental's? Just kidding.

 

For less than 6 digits I don't get up in the morning.  Tongue
I am sorry if I offend - that is not my intention.  The OLAF Lab is quite mundane compared to the lab I work in at college (though I made many more dollars at OLAF than I do as a student researcher Smile ).

 

As an example of a recent experiment, we are in the testing phases of an aberration-free telescope which we will use to study nodal aberration theory applied to nonrotationally symmetric surfaces by injecting aberrations into a "pure" system and studying the effects based on the injection location of the aberrations in the optical system. 

 

We have essentially put coma into a window plate and will add that to the system.  To fabricate the plate we start with a $20 100mm diameter window of N-BK7 and make 7 deterministic polishing runs.  Each requires pre and post metrology of the surface and takes approximately 14 hours.  This is done on a Fizeau interferometer which costs $100,000 - $750,000 depending on the model and requires a highly trained technician.  The deterministic polisher is somewhere in the low millions.  When completed, the piece is worth $25,000 - $75,000 as quoted from a few freeform-capable manufactures simply due to the machinery and time needed. 

 

Freeform is essentially "super-aspheres," but an aspheric lens of that diameter would cost $250-$2500 depending on the maximum slope of the surface.  Make it double-sided and the cost increases to more like $750-$7500. 

 

Reduce the diameter to 1/3 that, but ask for 2-3 of these in a system with 9 other elements, a mechanical barrel, coatings, some QC testing, warranty, etc, and you must sell it for $999.  Tough price to meet. 

 

Look at the collimators used in an MTF bench for example.  They have non-aggressive specs - 300mm f/6 and extremely limited FoV for example.  The manufacture will ask $10,000 - $15,000 for one.  Canon manages to produce a 300mm f/2.8 with a much wider FoV, adjustable focus, autofocus, an image stabilizer, and advanced mechanics for $6,000.  To those making optics for research, defense, private industry, or biomedical applications that kind of aggressive pricing is unheard of.  Photographers wonder why the lenses aren't finished in a fine gold leaf for that price, but you get an enormous value for your money.  The fluorite elements in the 300/2.8 on their own are worth about half its price in raw materials alone ($750-$1000/lb) let alone the processing and manufacturing of the elements. 
#27
Quote:In my last test of Nikon 200-500 f5.6 i noticed that some photo with time around 1/1000s where probably afected from use of VR sistem. 
Yikes, Nikon seems to have an issue with their current image stabilization design, and their product testing. 
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)