D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8786 times:
So, I saw a camera shop had them in stock and bought one on impulse. First thoughts: it takes a little getting used to when you've not shot VR before, but once you get the hang of it, it really works well. This lens is surprisingly sharp for a "prosumer" lens.
This shot was in lowish-light, but I was able to shoot steady at f/8 and 1/320 at the full 300mm:
Avsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8784 times:
Pretty good. What kind of price was there for the lens? Plus, how old is your Sigma? I just purchased their new 70-200mm APO F/2.8 EX DG (with macro) about a month ago and really like it. Now I am trying to decide if I should sell my Tamron 70-300mm and get a 1.4x teleconverter for the Sigma.
"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8782 times:
I picked up the 70-300VR for $540 including shipping. I ordered it and received it 3 days later.
My Sigma (70-200 APO DG EX, no macro) is a year old. It doesn't have the macro setting, but I never get that close to planes anyways. Maybe if I had ramp access ...
I'll probably use them both. VR can't stop the action like 2.8 can.
Not everyone has that kind of bankroll, at least not for a hobby (I'm no pro). Maybe some day, but by then, I'm sure there will be some new technology that I'll be drooling over.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8696 times:
Here's another shot I just edited. This was shot at f/5.6 at the full 300mm and 1/60th shutter:
Definitely a good lens, worth $540. I also should mention that it's very light, and more compact, so it packs well. I'm guessing it's half the weight of my Sigma.
IngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5 Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8687 times:
I'm really intrigued by this new lens.
Have been thinking about it for a while now, but since they're not available in stores in Sweden just yet, I think i'll have to wait. I want to try it before I "commit" to it:
....on the other hand, from pics I've seen this far it certainly seems good enough!
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8686 times:
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8679 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 9): You should not need VR to shoot at 1/320th and 300mm.
I do notice a difference in sharpness with the VR on. 1/320th is very close to the reciprocal of the focal length. Isn't that where you start to see blurring effects from camera shake?
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8662 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 9): You should not need VR to shoot at 1/320th and 300mm.
VR should enable you to shoot at 1/125th and 300mm.
...and thus, shouldn't this new lens be able to stop the action like a 2.8? Even though optical quality will be a bit less?
DLX, how's the autofocus doing so far? It was speculated that it might be very good.
Ingemar, you seem to know a whole lot about photography. I assume you have good equipment. What makes you so interested in this lens?
I am too, my situation is that I broke my 80-200D last year. Now only have a 50-500 for play in good weather and my 'travel' Sigma 70-300. Want something better, usable in worse weather, but preferably reaching to 300 mm and preferably a bit smaller and lighter than the 80-200 2.8. I'm not sure what to do now.
Peter
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
IngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8650 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12): Ingemar, you seem to know a whole lot about photography.
Ha ha,...that's too funny! But, Thanks anyway!!
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12): I assume you have good equipment. What makes you so interested in this lens?
Well, I'm happy with the stuff I have today. But,...one must look to the future!!
Why say no to a (relatively) cheap lens that is lightweight, has AF-S and VR!?!?! .....especially if it produces decent enough results!?
You know how it is,....no matter how much is in the camera bag to begin with,...there's always room and love enough for another gadget.
(As I'm writing this, I'm recalling a thread from last year regarding new-years resolutions and the promise I made back then. Well, I must've been halucogenic or something...
Let's just leave it at,......me failing grossly!! )
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8647 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12): DLX, how's the autofocus doing so far? It was speculated that it might be very good.
The autofocus is indeed very fast. Click the shutter, and it's there, pretty much. If you have the 18-70, it's faster than that, for reference. It also almost never hunts.
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 31 Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8626 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12): shouldn't this new lens be able to stop the action like a 2.8?
No.
VR does not stop the action - it takes a fast shutter speed to do that. The advantage of a lens with a largest aperture of 2.8 is that it enables to use fast shutter speeds when there would be insufficient light at those shutter speeds for lenses with a largest aperture of, say, f/4.5.
VR reduces the effect of camera shake, i.e. allows you to shoot at a slower shutter speed without getting blurred images.
[Edited 2007-01-04 16:39:32]
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8613 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 17): should make panning easier, right?
The IS on my old lens was fantastic, the IS on the 70-300 DO I'm using now (70-200 non-IS just came from a trip ) is also fantastic, I've gotten decent results @ 300mm 1/60th with them both, but of course Javier G. has got 400mm 1/10th.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8611 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 18): but of course Javier G. has got 400mm 1/10th.
That man must have surgeons' hands.
You still need excellent panning skill to use VR or IS at 1/10. VR won't lock the lens onto a subject - you have to have the lens pointed to the same place on the subject throughout the time the shutter is open. I personally am not there yet. But, with my first VR lens, I have incentive to practice!
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 20 Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8602 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 18): I've gotten decent results @ 300mm 1/60th with them both, but of course Javier G. has got 400mm 1/10th.
Panning at very slow shutter speeds is not immediately what I'm after, although I'll give it another try with VR.
What I'm really hoping for is that panning a moving plane at, say, 1/250th with the aid of VR will give rather better results than without, so that aperture can stay at f8 or above in weaker light, even though the lens is not a f2.8.
Viv, are you saying that this is a misconception? No, I'm not that shaky.
[Edited 2007-01-04 17:09:43]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Avsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 8584 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 8): I am drooling over the D200 though, but I can't justify the expense just yet.
The same here...especially since I just purchased a new lens.
"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
Viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, RR: 31 Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8577 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 21): What I'm really hoping for is that panning a moving plane at, say, 1/250th with the aid of VR will give rather better results than without, so that aperture can stay at f8 or above in weaker light, even though the lens is not a f2.8.
Viv, are you saying that this is a misconception? No, I'm not that shaky.
No, since a person who is shaky will probably also be shaky when panning.
Why do you only shoot at f8 or above? Any additional sharpness you gain will be more than offset by camera shake due to the slow shutter speed. There is additional sharpness in the "sweet spot", but is a very tiny amount. The main reason to avoid larger apertures is to keep adequate depth of field, not sharpness.
I know people who have (very expensive) lenses with the capability to go to 2.8 and they always shoot at f8. There's nowt as queer as folk.
This was taken with a Nikkor 80-400 VR, ISO 100, zoom at 400mm, f9, 1/200th/sec. I was standing on tiptoe to see over the fence.
32 UALDUDE: Hi all My photo that was added may? be the first one with the Nikon 70-300mm VR, see below link, and was shot with Nikon D200 and 70-300mm VR. That sh
33 Ptrjong: That's good to hear as I just picked up mine. Peter
34 Dbudd: Seeing that I own the older 70-300 ED non-VR lens and just picked up the newer 70-300 VR I can say that I see an improvement in sharpness in my pictur
36 CalgaryBill: I've been pretty interested in this lens for its relatively small size and weight for the given length. But considering I already have the 70-200 and
37 Andy777: Hi All, I received my lens on Friday and it is truly excellent and a big improvement over the non VR version. Here is one of my first attempts, so wha
38 Ptrjong: Hi, It doesn't signify much, of course, but I can't resist plugging my first upload, and first acceptance shot with this lens. View Large View MediumP
39 TedTAce: I think the Aircraft looks brilliant.. BUT I don't like how dark it is under the wing (call me a hypocrite, and you'd be right). If there was more to
41 Andy777: Thanks TedAce, it is a nice lens so just waiting for some better conditions and a bit more practice Excellent shot
42 Ptrjong: Yeah, I was lucky with some sunny winter weather, of course. Still, lens is clearly sharper than the Sigma 70-300 APO I've been using lately, with a
43 Clickhappy: All I am seeing our damn good, if not perfect, light. Yawn. Let's see some low light and or panning shots. Any lens can take nice shots at f/11....
44 IngemarE: I see nothing particularly bad when it comes to lighting in this pic. After all, it (b)is(/b) only a little Fokker and you can't expect it to outclim
45 D L X: I showed you mine, and you rejected it. :-P :-P
46 BuyantUkhaa: I think he meant the 777, not the Fokker.
48 D L X: Not sure I'm going to keep it in the queue, but here's another one. Low light. f/5.6, 1/160, 300mm. http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...dy/Nxxxxx_D
49 TedTAce: Damn.. it has soo much potential too!! I love these kinds of shots.
50 D L X: Actually, I'm pretty certain I'm pulling it. It looks pretty crappy in JPEG. But it is sharp on the wingtips! I won't underexpose it next time.
51 Andy777: Hey, DLX nice attempt. Not quite low light like DLX but here is another attempt. Andy
52 TedTAce: That looks pretty good to me, there is something I can't put my finger on, but I mostly like this shot.
53 Clickhappy: I am not on a screen I use to screen pictures at the moment, but at first glance that shots looks like the reds and blues are way jacked up, and the f
54 OlegShv: Looks a bit oversaturated, otherwise pretty good.
55 Andy777: Can't disagree with these statements. I have looked at the picture on a different monitor and can see the problems. Andy
56 D L X: Thanks. However, even though that photo was not fit for upload, at least it proves that the glass is good glass, and the VRII works *very* well. 300m
57 OlegShv: From the shots that I've seen in this thread, this lens seems to be quite nice. Certainly AF-S and VR would be big improvements with respect to my yea
58 GAWZU: Hi all, I received my AF-S 70-300mm VR last week, and am extremely pleased with it so far. As an owner of an AF-D 70-300mm ED lens for the last 5 year
59 OlegShv: You mean I should get a 70-300 VR or a 70-200 VR?
60 Ptrjong: I think he means you should get a 70-300 VR. But although I like mine so far, I wonder what that advice is based on. View Large View MediumPhoto &cop
61 Clickhappy: The 70-300 is what, 1/3 the price of the 70-200? Can't really see someone choosing one over the other
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11360 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3106 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, 
Now only have a 50-500 for play in good weather and my 'travel' Sigma 70-300. Want something better, usable in worse weather, but preferably reaching to 300 mm and preferably a bit smaller and lighter than the 80-200 2.8. I'm not sure what to do now. 
).
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
