Info regarding the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1

C

carguy

Senior Member
A discussion on a Nikon facebook group grabbed my attention.

Regarding the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1, it was mentioned that lens was designed for DX digital bodies. The lens arrived in 2003 and the only Nikon digital bodies were DX at that time, that lens was also for 35mm film bodies if I recall.

It was also stated that lens only resolved to 11MP, using it on later model, FX, digital cameras capable of higher megapixels, would result it not allowing the camera to make the best of the sensor technology.

This was the first time I heard this information, and as it was just two people on a facebook group, I wanted to bounce this off of the well informed members here :)

Thoughts?
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
What was Nikons highest MP camera in 2003 could be they read something along the lines of it being used with whatever was Nikons highest at the time.
 
C

carguy

Senior Member
Thing is, I've never read or heard anyone with a D800, 800e, etc having issues using a VR1. People still use it with success.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
If I check the stats at DxO between the 70-200mm VRII and the 70-200mm VR IF-ED, they're both pretty similar in behavior although the new is evidently a bit sharper.

If the old is a DX lens then so is the new one.

I checked both their performance on a D610 and it's not as if the old suddenly drops when out of the center or maxes out in sharpness at 11Mpix.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
carguy said:
A discussion on a Nikon facebook group grabbed my attention.

Regarding the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR1, it was mentioned that lens was designed for DX digital bodies. The lens arrived in 2003 and the only Nikon digital bodies were DX at that time, that lens was also for 35mm film bodies if I recall.

It was also stated that lens only resolved to 11MP, using it on later model, FX, digital cameras capable of higher megapixels, would result it not allowing the camera to make the best of the sensor technology.

This was the first time I heard this information, and as it was just two people on a facebook group, I wanted to bounce this off of the well informed members here :)

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


In 2003, Nikon was still making lenses for 35mm. :) I use the 70-200 VR 1 on a D800, so I think it is obviously incorrect that it was designed for DX. The VR 2 is said to be improved, but the VR 1 is mighty good on FX. Certainly one of the best lenses I have.

crop2.jpg


This is 100% crop with 70-200 VR 1 on D800. Click it to enlarge it.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
Every lens can be better on DX, because DX crops to only use the central 2/3 of the area. No optical aberration from the errors at greater diameter. Much the same reason that stopping down from maximum also improves performance. The obvious downside is much less wide angle performance from DX (cropped). :)
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
I read something a while ago that kinda busted the "better performance because of center use" myth. I assumed that to be true but there seems to be more at work resulting in FX lenses not really performing as well on a DX sensor as on an FX. Quality-wise that is. The fact any imperfection of the lens is affected by the crop factor too was one reason.

The image the lens projects on the sensor is exactly identical for both but after that, the differences surface.

I'd have to start digging to find that article.
 
Last edited:
W

WayneF

Senior Member
J-see said:
I read something a while ago that kinda busted the "better performance because of center use" myth. I assumed that to be true but there seems to be more at work resulting in FX lenses not really performing as well on a DX sensor as on an FX. Quality-wise that is. The fact any imperfection of the lens is affected by the crop factor too was one reason.

The image the lens projects on the sensor is exactly identical for both but after that, the differences surface.

I'd have to start digging to find that article.
Click to expand...

That ought to be interesting (he said disbelieving). "After that" is NOT about the lens. :)
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
WayneF said:
That ought to be interesting (he said disbelieving). "After that" is NOT about the lens. :)
Click to expand...

The lens doesn't make any difference since it simply projects the image regardless if we attach a DX, FX or coffee-cup to it. But there were some differences between sensors that had an impact on the IQ of the shot.

I don't remember all I read and I didn't bookmark the page but the crop factor played a role and when comparing identical shots, the distance difference this crop factor enforces between DX and FX which has an impact on the detail a lens can resolve. The FX in such a case has the advantage of being closer which makes it a bit of an unfair comparison in those situations.
 
W

WayneF

Senior Member
No dispute about sensors causing effects. DX is smaller, more narrow view, and has to be enlarged half again more. FX cropped to DX has only about 40% pixels than if not cropped, whereas DX sensor is full size there. etc, etc. But that is not about lenses.

Pursuant to this tread, the same lens is the same lens, and the central area of any lens is always better than the edge area (in any test). The FX edges of a DX lens are normally absolutely horrible. :)
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
WayneF said:
No dispute about sensors causing effects. DX is smaller, more narrow view, and has to be enlarged half again more. FX cropped to DX has only about 40% pixels than if not cropped, whereas DX sensor is full size there. etc, etc. But that is not about lenses.

Pursuant to this tread, the same lens is the same lens, and the central area of any lens is always better than the edge area (in any test). The FX edges of a DX lens are normally absolutely horrible. :)
Click to expand...

Evidently the same lens is the same lens and the image both types receive is exactly identical, quality wise. Even the fact that the one uses a portion of the lens -the center part- while the other uses it fully makes no difference.

Until you add the rest of the cam to the equation. ;)

There's no disagreement that the center of a lens is usually the better part of it. I didn't hear of any lens that has excellent corner performance but doesn't do well in the center. But there's this idea, which I shared, that therefor the DX has an edge on the FX when shooting the same lens. It's not that simple it seems.
 
Last edited:
Top