Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More On The Nikon 70-300 VR  
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11179 posts, RR: 52
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 12016 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:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/n920ME_DCA_010107_DSC7629.jpg

I think I'll hold on to it to supplement my Sigma 70-200.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAvsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 12014 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"
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11179 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 12012 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 ...  Wink

I'll probably use them both. VR can't stop the action like 2.8 can.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12362 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 12004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting D L X (Reply 2):
VR can't stop the action like 2.8 can.

The 70-200 f2.8 with VR can! wink 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11179 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 11999 times:

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 3):
The 70-200 f2.8 with VR 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAvsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 11985 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 4):
Not everyone has that kind of bankroll

You beat me to that.



"Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth...Put out my hand and touched the face of God"
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11179 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11926 times:

Here's another shot I just edited. This was shot at f/5.6 at the full 300mm and 1/60th shutter:

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/n997DL_DCA_010107_DSC7737.jpg

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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineIngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 11917 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:  Wink
....on the other hand, from pics I've seen this far it certainly seems good enough!

DLX,
What body are you using?



In thrust I trust.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11179 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 11916 times:

Quoting IngemarE (Reply 7):
What body are you using?

I'm currently using a D70. (I am drooling over the D200 though, but I can't justify the expense just yet.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11911 times:

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
I was able to shoot steady at f/8 and 1/320 at the full 300mm:

You should not need VR to shoot at 1/320th and 300mm.

VR should enable you to shoot at 1/125th and 300mm. I do it all th time with my 80-400 VR.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11179 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11909 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?

The second photo was at 300mm and 1/60th.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11905 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 10):
that where you start to see blurring effects from camera shake?

Not necessarily. It depends how steady you are. The "rule" is just a rough guide.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3904 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11892 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.  banghead  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 Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineIngemarE From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 285 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11880 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 12):
Ingemar, you seem to know a whole lot about photography.

 praise   bigthumbsup 
Ha ha,...that's too funny! But, Thanks anyway!!  Wink

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!!  Smile
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. Big grin
(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...  Embarrassment
Let's just leave it at,......me failing grossly!! Big grin )



In thrust I trust.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11179 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11877 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.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3904 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11856 times:

Quoting IngemarE (Reply 13):



Quoting D L X (Reply 14):

Thanks. I'll buy one. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have arrived in this neck of the woods.

Quoting D L X (Reply 14):
If you have the 18-70

Yes, I'm using a D70 with that like you.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11856 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
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3904 posts, RR: 19
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11847 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 16):

Ah, yes, you're right of course.
However, I understand that VR should make panning easier, right? (I've never used a VR lens  Silly ).



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11843 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 Big grin ) is also fantastic, I've gotten decent results @ 300mm 1/60th with them both, but of course Javier G. has got 400mm 1/10th.  Smile

But I'd say it'd be good.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11179 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11841 times:

Quoting Aero145 (Reply 18):
but of course Javier G. has got 400mm 1/10th.

That man must have surgeons' hands.

 Smile

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!



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11836 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 17):
VR should make panning easier, right?

If you are shaky it reduces blur, whether you are panning or not.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3904 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11832 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)
User currently offlineAero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3071 posts, RR: 21
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11818 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 21):

Chris Sharps said something about that when on a sunny day, on let's say 300mm 1/320th, he turns IS off because it comes sharper without...


User currently offlineAvsfan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 250 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11814 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"
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 11807 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.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vivion Mulcahy



[Edited 2007-01-04 18:16:37]


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
25 Ptrjong : In most circumstances I do, to have adequate depth of field. I'm not so keen on side-ons. I know.
26 D L X : Well, you also want to make sure the whole plane is in focus. There's not much you can do when the wings are tack, but the nose is soft.
27 Post contains images GertLOWG : I made this photo with f8, 1/30th/sec, 300mm. I like my new 70-300 VR lens. What do you think about my photo? Best Regards! Gert!
28 Ptrjong : 1/30th @ 300 mm! Pretty good... Where did you get the lens, Gert?
29 GertLOWG : Online-Store here in Austria. Best Regards! Gert!
30 Post contains links and images Ptrjong : View Large View MediumPhoto © Gert Rosmann Congratulations, maybe the first shot with it in the database? Peter
31 D L X : Probably. My shot was rejected.
32 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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
35 Post contains images TedTAce : Looks like I have to go shopping
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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains images 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
40 GertLOWG : I like this photo, great job. Gert!
41 Andy777 : Thanks TedAce, it is a nice lens so just waiting for some better conditions and a bit more practice Excellent shot
42 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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.
47 Post contains images TedTAce :
48 Post contains links 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains images 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 Post contains links and images 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 Post contains images OlegShv : You mean I should get a 70-300 VR or a 70-200 VR?
60 Post contains links and images 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Setting F-stops On The Nikon D50 posted Thu May 18 2006 03:28:26 by Cadet57
Thoughts On The Nikon 80-400VR And Other Lenses? posted Tue Mar 22 2005 23:10:29 by AndyHunt
Nikon 70- 200mm VR Ordered, But... posted Sat Dec 18 2004 16:18:42 by Beechcraft
Opinions On The Canon 28-300 L Is Lens posted Fri Jun 25 2004 11:46:36 by Paulianer
Opinions On The Nikon Coolpix 5700 posted Mon Jul 7 2003 18:10:18 by Manzoori
Any One Already Bought The Nikon's AF VR 80-400? posted Wed Jan 17 2001 12:12:42 by Sia jubilee
Thoughts On The 70-300 Nikkor Ed posted Wed Dec 13 2000 22:42:06 by Vaman
My Thoughts On The Sigma 80-400mm OS Lens (Nikon). posted Tue Dec 13 2005 21:49:48 by Yanqui67
Nikon D70 & Sigma 70-300 APO posted Mon Nov 21 2005 12:24:46 by Llroigt
Nikon 70-200mm F/2.8G AF-S VR Opinions? posted Sat Nov 22 2003 22:12:37 by Pilothighflyer