70-300mm VR (Nikkor)

Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook 2.2 ghz, iPhone 3G, And g5 iMac
Im looking at the 70-300mm telephoto lens for my d60

is it worth it to pay the $400 or whatever for the vr or just go with the non vr?

Ps: link to my stuff in sig...
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
1,056
Reaction score
33
Points
48
Location
Rhinebeck, NY
Your Mac's Specs
20" iMac 2.66 GHz... Running 10.5.7
The lens sucks, if you really want an honest opinion. I really recommend getting the 18-135mm instead.
 
OP
Jordanjez193
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook 2.2 ghz, iPhone 3G, And g5 iMac
dont you shoot Cannon?

and I dont have that type of money to blow....
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 20', Macbook 2.4 Ghz
I have a 70-300 Nikkor and get excellent results with it. The only problem is not with the lens itself, but the fact that if you are shooting something any great distance away, the heated air between you and your subject is going to trash your sharpness.

As for the VR factor, I use it, but as for its effectiveness, since I shoot action subjects I've never had a chance to try with it both on and off to see if there's any difference.
 
OP
Jordanjez193
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook 2.2 ghz, iPhone 3G, And g5 iMac
I hear with the VR it has a harder time focusing, when panning. I talked to a woman at a local Ritz Camera and she says she uses it for sports and she usually has it switched off and sees no difference.

Interesting. If you find yourself shooting with it switch it off and let me know how it goes if you please.

Thanks.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
VR does nothing to stop motion. If you're shooting people at 1/60 at a focal length of 200mm, motionless objects won't be blurry from camera shake but moving objects may be blurry because of motion and the slower shutter speed.
 
OP
Jordanjez193
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook 2.2 ghz, iPhone 3G, And g5 iMac
Ok I understand But when she is moving the camera to get action going on like she is following a player running or a ball in flight.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
213
Points
63
Location
Forest Hills, NYC
Your Mac's Specs
15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
The lens sucks, if you really want an honest opinion. I really recommend getting the 18-135mm instead.

That's such a horribly general statement with nothing to back it up at all. I can show you not only a 45 page thread at nikoncafe.com with incredible results from that lens, but you can also look at pixel-peeper.com for many other fantastic shots with it. I can also add my own shots to prove that this lens does anything BUT suck.

The only other lens which is as tack sharp for its focal range as well as price range is the 55-200 (yet another amazing budget lens if you don't mind its slower speed).

As for the VR, it has two modes. Normal and active. Use active for when you're panning and normal for still objects. And of course, when using a tripod, you don't want to use VR at all.

This lens has been amazing for me, and has achieved razor sharp results across the focal range. I have yet to see any CA or vignetting, I absolutely love it. You also have to take into consideration that someone complaining about it might have gotten a bad copy, or hasn't taken the proper steps in order to tweak the focus settings (in camera) if that feature is available. (AF fine tuning)

I personally feel that VR is worth the extra cash for two reasons. For one, you absolutely will be able to get shots in dim light situations which would normally call for lower shutter speeds... and where you can't open the aperture any further. Plus, it's always usually good to go with newer technology. It's likely more well built than its predecessor to boot. But that's just an assumption, so can't speak to that as being a truth.

Great lens, well worth it.

Doug
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
497
Reaction score
9
Points
18
Location
California
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 24" 2.66 C2D, 13" MacBook i7 2.9GHz, iPad 3, iPhone 4
That's such a horribly general statement with nothing to back it up.
...
I personally feel that VR is worth the extra cash for two reasons. For one, you absolutely will be able to get shots in dim light situations which would normally call for lower shutter speeds... and where you can't open the aperture any further. Plus, it's always usually good to go with newer technology. It's likely more well built than its predecessor to boot. But that's just an assumption, so can't speak to that as being a truth.

I agree. I have the 18-200mm VR and in low-light the VR helps quite a bit. I can say I have personally tested it with VR on and off for the same shots and VR can help quite a bit (and I don't have a shaky hand). I use mine indoors too with a bounce flash but I usually lean to my 35mm f/2 most of the time.

My father-in-law has a 70-300mm Tamron lens, he tried my 18-200mm and is now looking for the same lens you are looking at with VR. ;)

All-in-all it depends on what you're shooting. Sporting events? You'll more than likely be shooting at a fast shutter rate anyway and VR probably won't help you. Where it comes in most handy is at mid to full zoom. I recommend you rent one and try it out before you buy.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2007
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
134
Points
63
Location
Durtburg, WV
Your Mac's Specs
Sooper Fast!
Ok I understand But when she is moving the camera to get action going on like she is following a player running or a ball in flight.

Your sentences confuse me.

She? Woman at Ritz?

What's the point of your statement?

Will VR help with panning?

The focusing speed is going to be depend on the lens and the camera. Does the 70-300 have an AF motor in the lens or is it dependent on the camera? What type of focusing is it? I'm sure Nikon has some type of HSM or USM equivalent focusing system for that lens.

Generally though, unless you're buying the expensive stuff, the cheaper lenses won't focus as fast as an expensive lens.

Depending on your budget, you may even take a look at a used Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Not quite the same reach, but it's a much faster lens and you'll get more light and again, depending on other factors like how many stops Nikon's VR on that lens claims to get, you may still walk out with having the same power as the 70-300 with the wider aperture of the 70-200.

Edit: And the Sigma 70-200 has HSM, which is their version of a fast AF motor. Should work with the d60 and focus fast.

But then again, you can get panning shots with manual focus, it'll just be a lot harded. But that's why pros use $3000+ cameras and $1500+ lenses.
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,343
Reaction score
213
Points
63
Location
Forest Hills, NYC
Your Mac's Specs
15-inch Early 2008; Processor 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; Memory 4 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM; 10.7.5
The bottom line:

Yes, VR will absolutely improve panning shots. But you also have to consider the type of panning which is being done. Example:

Panning with or without a monopod. If you're using a monopod, chances are that you're attempting to capture a fast moving object such as a vehicle or perhaps someone running. However, if you are panning and tracking an object with variable height and depth, then you likely won't be using a monopod (unless your lens is fairly wide and can encompass both depth and height for a variable object such as a ball flying through the air).

I did my research on the Sigma and Tamron 200's and did not like them for various reasons. The Sigma was a hunt machine. Hunt, hunt hunt, and more hunting with that lens. The Tamron didn't focus fast enough in dim light when compared to the Nikkor, and was also very noisy. My research wasn't rushed and I made a very solid decision, and am VERY happy with the results. The range, sharpness, bokeh and speed of the 70-300 is right on in my opinion. Sure it's not super fast (not talking focus, because that IS very fast) but the VR makes up for that fact, and its price is right on the money.

You also should take this last thing into consideration: Resale value. Take care of the Nikkor stuff, and you'll be able to trade or sell it with a lot more ease than a Tamron or Sigma. BTW, I"m not biased either, I absolutely adore my Sigma 17-70. The macro on that thing is stellar.

Doug
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
1,056
Reaction score
33
Points
48
Location
Rhinebeck, NY
Your Mac's Specs
20" iMac 2.66 GHz... Running 10.5.7
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
497
Reaction score
9
Points
18
Location
California
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 24" 2.66 C2D, 13" MacBook i7 2.9GHz, iPad 3, iPhone 4
I got to play with the 70-300mm VR on a D90 today that a friend at work had gotten - I really like the sharpness, bokeh and overall quality of the lens.

I can't wait to "rent it" from him. :)

Hopefully one day I will be able to afford one.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
Points
8
Im looking at the 70-300mm telephoto lens for my d60

is it worth it to pay the $400 or whatever for the vr or just go with the non vr?

Ps: link to my stuff in sig...

I would recommend the VR lens over both previous versions of 70-300s. Besides the VR you get AF-S which gives you faster focus and the full time ability for manual focus. The optical formula has been upgraded as well. Images are very sharp with good contrast.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
Points
8
The lens sucks, if you really want an honest opinion. I really recommend getting the 18-135mm instead.

I shoot with a Canon digital point and shoot and a Nikon EM.

Save your money instead of trying to buy all this crappy, cheap lenses. Learn to live with what you have, you don't need all this stuff right away.

I make great photos with my fully manual Nikon EM and 50mm 1.8 lens.


BTW, here is the link to the 18-135:

Nikon | 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S DX Lens | 2162 | B&H Photo

Hummm.

Didn't see this around the first time but I'm feeling the need to respond. :)

1. I've owned the 70-300VR as well as the 70-200VR, 180 2.8, 80-200s. It compares quite well at comparable apertures which is a decent feat considering the F2.8s are stopped down a few stops.

2. The 18-135 and 70-300 are very different in their applications. The OP asked if the VR is worth the extra. I would feel safe assuming he already has an 18-xxx zoom.

3. "Save your money instead of trying to buy all this crappy, cheap lenses."
And you recommend the 18-135? It is a very sharp lens and good for the money, but cheap and crappy would first describe the 18-135 before the 70-300VR.

4. "Learn to live with what you have, you don't need all this stuff right away.
I make great photos with my fully manual Nikon EM and 50mm 1.8 lens."
Good advice. But it also seems the OP is ready to get a longer focal length because of whatever reason. An EM and a 50mm make great images but will hardly help you at a soccer game or the zoo where you cannot foot zoom.
 
OP
Jordanjez193
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook 2.2 ghz, iPhone 3G, And g5 iMac
thank you Nikonjn

I think im going to end up getting 70-300 for sports , soccer, track, and baseball. I went and shot a division 3 basketball game and my 55-200 and 18-55 worked well. I figured that will probably be fine until i can get $1200 to buy a 24-70 or some jank, which is kinda hard to raise when your only 15.



Thanks every 1.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
35
Reaction score
3
Points
8
thank you Nikonjn

I think im going to end up getting 70-300 for sports , soccer, track, and baseball. I went and shot a division 3 basketball game and my 55-200 and 18-55 worked well. I figured that will probably be fine until i can get $1200 to buy a 24-70 or some jank, which is kinda hard to raise when your only 15.



Thanks every 1.

Wasn't sure if you already had a tele zoom. The choice really should be between your 55-200 or the 70-300.

Or 200 vs. 300, ring type AF-S vs. the micro motor(55-200), VR or not, and lastly the cost of upgrading vs. keeping what you have.

200mm vs. 300mm isn't really a whole lot. The 70-300 at 200mm is in the "sweet" spot for the lens and should perform much better than the 55-200 at it's longest end. Most zooms don't perform best at their extremities and the 70-300 will be slightly weaker at 300mm.

Ring vs. Micro motor? Here's the biggest difference IMO. Much faster.

VR is nice for static subjects.

$$$ - the big question. I'd almost suggest a 10-20 Sigma instead as it will give you a whole different look. Or maybe the new 35 1.8 AF-S for its fast aperture.
 
OP
Jordanjez193
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
66
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Your Mac's Specs
MacBook 2.2 ghz, iPhone 3G, And g5 iMac
Yeah the sigma has been suggested many times.... I dont know Im confused about if id rather shoot sports or art?

This would be so much easier if i had a job and dint have to save up for 3 months.

Is there a another cheap alternative to the sigma im looking in the $100-300 range but defiantly like the wide angles.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top