"VR" Nikon lenses

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Here is a list of lower priced alternatives that have
potential:

Nikon:
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR ED AF $ 1,650

it's slow to focus, and the nikon 70-300vr is significantly faster to
focus (it's afs) and as good or better where it overlaps. it's a *much*
better deal at 1/4 the price. the 80-400 isn't all that hot at 400
anyway, so the fact that the 70-300 doesn't reach that far is minor.

I disagree on that last sentence. It's not "all that hot"; but
it is 400mm, and it isn't all that bad either... though, if it
wasn't clear from my previous article, I do consider the Nikkor
80-400mm the low end of the acceptable lenses mentioned, and
virtually none of those with lesser price tags are worth serious
consideration.

The main point though was that the OP asked for 400mm or more,
so I didn't go into 300mm examples, of which there are many that
would need to be included if the specification were 300mm and
longer.

Much of the wildlife imagery that I do here requires something
much longer than 400mm. Hence I tend to discount anything less
than that, and a 400mm lens too if it cannot work with at least
a 1.4x telextender on it. But I'm also critically aware of the
difference in mobility of a hand held 400mm with VR and an 800mm
on a tripod!

On the other hand, I live on the Arctic Tundra where getting
close to *anything* is rare, so I might be biased. The OP might
not actually need an 800mm lens, but lacking that requirement is
just very hard for me to conceptualize! ;-)

Sigma:
50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM AF $ 1,060
150-500mm f5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO AF $ 1,000
120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APF AF $ 900

expensive junk. lensrentals claims 45% failure rate on the last two and
33% for the first one. plus, a 10x zoom lens is going to have image
quality compromises, there's no way around it.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-10

Personally I have never heard much good about any of them, at
least from any credible source. I do see a lot examples from a
couple folks that post images to forums that I read. I'm not at
all impressed.

The significant difference with these lenses is the slower
aperture. Note that AF ceases to work if the aperture is too
slow (at different apertures, depending on the camera). I use a
Nikon 80-400mm with a Kenko 1.4x teleconverter once in awhile,
but AF does not work with a 2x converter on a Nikon D3 body.

i've used a 1.7x on a nikon f/4-5.6 lens and it focused at all focal
lengths, although a little slower than normal, and that was *not* in
the best light either, nor was it a d3 class camera. try it again, but
with an afs lens.

Well, that is the point! At 2x it is very likely that a f/4-5.6
lens will AF okay at the wide end and fail at the long end.
With a lower magnification it will probably work across the
entire range. But an f/4.5-6.3 lens is just a slight bit more
into the unlikely to work, and may well fail to AF properly with
a 1.6x or 1.7x telextender.

If at all possible, the OP would want to check that sort of
thing out before making a purchase.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

nospam wrote:
a 10x zoom lens is going to have image
quality compromises, there's no way around it.

An important consideration indeed (assuming the OP is looking for a zoom
lens and not a fixed focal length lens).

jue

here's a source for some info
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2
reviews of a lot of different lenses



On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:46:53 -0600, Chef Bodini
wrote:

How important is this feature in a telephoto lens? I'd like to purchase
a lens for my d200 in the 400mm or better range. It would mostly be
used for wildlife photography as I live very close to a national park
(elk, wolf, birds).

Many of the OEM brands (Sigma, Tamron) offer telephoto lenses and I'm
wondering if they're even worth looking at.

TIA,
C

In article rks,
Chef Bodini wrote:

How important is this feature in a telephoto lens? I'd like to purchase
a lens for my d200 in the 400mm or better range. It would mostly be
used for wildlife photography as I live very close to a national park
(elk, wolf, birds).

To me VR is extremely valuable for many shots I would not get otherwise.
It is a tool that comes in handy quite often.

But I doubt VR would be of much use in the 400mm and over range.
Hand-holding a lens of that great focal length will almost always
require a tripod. I know Nikon makes a 600mm VR for 10K and I guess the
VR can't hurt but you can't hand-hold it.

If you have a lot of light I recommend a Nikon Fieldscope which becomes
a 1000mm f/13 very sharp lens for about $1500.


--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:35:47 -0400, M-M wrote:


But I doubt VR would be of much use in the 400mm and over range.
Hand-holding a lens of that great focal length will almost always
require a tripod.

Purely speculative nonsense.

In article ,
me wrote:

But I doubt VR would be of much use in the 400mm and over range.
Hand-holding a lens of that great focal length will almost always
require a tripod.

Purely speculative nonsense.


The more the magnification, the greater the relative shake. VR can only
combat so much.

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The main point though was that the OP asked for 400mm or more,
so I didn't go into 300mm examples, of which there are many that
would need to be included if the specification were 300mm and
longer.

So why not a good 300mm f/4 or faster non-zoom (or a terrific
xx-300mm zoom --- don't ask me if such a thing really exists)
and a good 1.4x teleconverter? That's also 400mm and might
be worth the price. (A 2x has a strong impact on the image
quality, but a 1.4x usually works out OK.)

-Wolfgang

Chef Bodini wrote:
How important is this feature in a telephoto lens?

It depends. For me, IS (the Canon variant of VR) is very
important, but then I seldom use a tripod and often encouner
low-light situations, though I usually don't use lenses as long
as you are planning to do.

I'd like to purchase
a lens for my d200 in the 400mm or better range. It would mostly be
used for wildlife photography as I live very close to a national park
(elk, wolf, birds).

So your effective reach would be 600mm (35mm equivalent).
The rule of thumb (which no longer really applies to such reach,
understating the case) would indicate that you'd want ~1/600s.
With f/5.6 you'd need at least LV 10 (well overcast day) to
handhold that at ISO 1600. You can imagine what that does to
a wolf in the shadows or an elk at early morning or evening.
That's why you want faster lenses.

Additionally, you don't need 1/600s to freeze the motion of the
animal in most cases, even if they are moving a lot, so a tripod,
monopod or IS can indeed help you.

The best help is of course a *good* tripod, though it'll much
reduce your mobility. VR can help with tripods when the ground or
the tripod is not 100% stable and the VR is new and good enough to
be allowed to detect a stable tripod situation and switch itself
off in that case.

A powerful alternative would be monopod + IS; while not offering
multi-second exposures, you should be able to gain 3-6 stops
(guestimated), depending on the VR quality and your monopod
technique. That'd allow you to shoot at e.g. 1/80s (3 stops)
or even 1/10s (6 stops, of course you want a completely still
animal for that --- and you'll have to test if that speed works
out with mirror slap and all, I won't guarantee it!), so you can
drop the ISO, stop down a bit and shoot into shadows.

With just the monopod, you might get 2-3 stops, depending on
your technique, with just the VR, you need to look at the VR
rating of the lens to know what you can expect. It may be that
the monopod alone is good enough for you, but remember that you
are still reduced in your mobility and shooting speed.

Many of the OEM brands (Sigma, Tamron) offer telephoto lenses and I'm
wondering if they're even worth looking at.

That depends a lot on the lens offered --- both on the model
and on the individual lens. Some OEMs do have at least a
reputation for widely varying quality between samples.

You might want to look into the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 (with
2x converter included, so you also get a 400-1000 f/5.6).
Don't forget to buy a *sturdy* tripod[1]. And hire someone to
carry the stuff. :-)
And with f/2.8 you win 2 stops for free, too.

Of course, the 300-800mm is cheaper. And slower. And smaller.
And lighter.

(And I cannot comment on the quality of either).

-Wolfgang

[1] though VR *would* help even with a good tripod ...

M-M wrote:
In article ,
me wrote:

But I doubt VR would be of much use in the 400mm and over range.
Hand-holding a lens of that great focal length will almost always
require a tripod.

Purely speculative nonsense.

The more the magnification, the greater the relative shake. VR can only
combat so much.

I can hand hold a 500mm with no VR at 1/400th sec and get very sharp
results if I can rest my elbows on something solid. With a free
standing unsupported hand hold I can do it with VR on (except in my
case it's not VR but in-body image stabilisation).

--
Chris Malcolm

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The main point though was that the OP asked for 400mm or more,
so I didn't go into 300mm examples, of which there are many that
would need to be included if the specification were 300mm and
longer.

So why not a good 300mm f/4 or faster non-zoom (or a terrific
xx-300mm zoom --- don't ask me if such a thing really exists)
and a good 1.4x teleconverter? That's also 400mm and might
be worth the price. (A 2x has a strong impact on the image
quality, but a 1.4x usually works out OK.)

I assume the OP wants a 400mm f/4 or faster non-zoom and a good
1.4x teleconverter. That *is* what he said he wants.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)