A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"VR" Nikon lenses



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 21st 09, 04:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chef Bodini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

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
  #2  
Old September 21st 09, 04:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
lebouef
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

If you are going to always use a tripod VR may not be that important for
longer telephotos, but it is a user preference issue.
If you are looking at the older Nikon 80-400 you would be better off looking
at the OS Sigma in the same range. That would be my choice for personal use.
If you want a single focal length lens the prices of Nikon high end
telephoto glass is quite high. Be sure you can return the lens if your
particular sample is not what it should be.

  #3  
Old September 21st 09, 04:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Jürgen Exner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,579
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

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


It gains you two to three f-stops. You need to decide if that's
important for you. I wouldn't want to miss it on my long lenses.

jue
  #4  
Old September 21st 09, 05:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

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).


for handheld use, stabilization is highly recommended. if you are going
to use a tripod, it's less of a requirement, but it can still help even
on a tripod if it's not rock steady. you can always turn it off if it's
there, but you can't turn it on if it's not there.

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


it depends on the lens. some are good, some are not.
  #5  
Old September 21st 09, 05:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

In article , lebouef
wrote:

If you are going to always use a tripod VR may not be that important for
longer telephotos, but it is a user preference issue.
If you are looking at the older Nikon 80-400 you would be better off looking
at the OS Sigma in the same range.


no you would definitely not. the sigma 80-400 is pig slow and the
stabilization is not all that good.

the nikon 70-300vr is fairly inexpensive and quite good, many even
consider it to be better than the 80-400 where they overlap. for longer
lenses, the prices go up dramatically.

That would be my choice for personal use.
If you want a single focal length lens the prices of Nikon high end
telephoto glass is quite high. Be sure you can return the lens if your
particular sample is not what it should be.


you get what you pay for.
  #6  
Old September 21st 09, 07:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

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.


You have not mentioned money, and that is necessarily going to
be more important than other considerations when buying a
400mm-plus lens for wildlife.

Here are some price tags on premium lenses to consider (note the
second list, of lower priced lenses, below):

Fixed Focal Length
==================
Nikkor:
400mm f/2.8G ED VR AF-S $ 8,900
500mm f/4G ED VR AF-S $ 8,600
600mm f/4G ED VR AF-S $10,300

Sigma:
500mm f/4.5 EXDG APO HSM AF $ 5,000
800mm f/5.6 EXDG APO HSM AF $ 8,000

Zoom
====
Nikkor:
200-400mm f/4G ED-IF VR AFS $ 6,300

Sigma:
300-800mm f/5.6 EX DG APO IF HSM AF $10,000
200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF AF $29,000

A step back of course would be to find older version of those
lenses that do not have VR. They are still expensive. And
going back one more step would be to manual focus lenses, which
aren't exactly cheap either! I use a manual focus 800mm f/5.6
lens that is difficult to use (it is impossible to shoot a flying
bird, for example) and has the two single qualities of 1)
superb optics and 2) it didn't cost $8,000.

Note that all of the lenses listed above can be used with
teleconverters and retain AF (on cameras that will AF at f/8).
With the f/5.6 lenses only a 1.5x will work, but anything at f/4
or faster will also work with a 2x teleconverter. (I'm not sure
how slow the lense can be with the D200 AF, so the numbers might
require adjustement to match that body.)

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

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

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.

With a physically small, and shorter focal length, lens such as
the Nikon 80-400mm, I find VR to be very useful for hand held
shots. I doubt that it is worth the extra money for longer or
larger lenses that necessarily *must* be tripod mounted.

Hence I suspect the best deals for the money are used telephoto
lenses from 400 to 800mm that are AF but not VR, if using a
tripod is reasonable. Otherwise, either the Nikor 200-400mm for
best results (at a price) or the relatively reasonable Nikkor
80-400mm, are the way to go.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #7  
Old September 21st 09, 11:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

"Larry Thong" wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote:

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


It gains you two to three f-stops. You need to decide if that's
important for you. I wouldn't want to miss it on my long lenses.


UTTER NONSENSE!!!

What you are repeating is sales brochure bull****. It goes against the laws
of physics to "gain two or three f-stops" when you are not letting in any
more light. What you are getting is the ability to shoot static objects at
a lower speed.


Ahhh... so you *are* letting in more light.

Do you stop to think what it is you are saying before you post?

That being said, VR is really a waste of money on long
lenses when shooting action shots or moving objects.


Or, maybe not, especially if you aren't shoot action shots of
moving objects! Some people do that...

At those low shutter
speeds you will get more motion blur with VR on. I don't use VR on any of
my long lenses.


You don't own any that have VR.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #9  
Old September 22nd 09, 01:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

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.

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

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.
  #10  
Old September 22nd 09, 01:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default "VR" Nikon lenses

Jürgen Exner wrote:
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
"Larry Thong" wrote:
UTTER NONSENSE!!!

[...]
Do you stop to think what it is you are saying before you post?


Floyd, don't bother. That Larry Thong is the same idiot who used to post
under the name Rita Berkowitz. His publicly declared goal is to stir up
this NG and to have fun. He has been a permanent member of my killfile
for a long, long time.


I know all that. It's just that I haven't stuck one off in it
for many months, and once in a while it *is* fun.

We all know Jorge, or whatever its real name is, is a liar to
begin with and a total charlatan to end with.

Plus, that article was about to confuse someone who asked a
serious question. The OP however, can now read the exchange
between you and I, and get a pretty good picture!

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ \The Great One\ Digital Photography 0 July 14th 09 12:04 AM
Are "D" and "Di" zoom lenses the same? Jeff Digital SLR Cameras 3 December 12th 06 11:16 AM
will Nikon release professional "digial" lenses ? Michael Schnell Digital SLR Cameras 87 May 29th 06 03:12 AM
Auto "Image Sharpening" and "Image Adjustment" with Nikon 5700 Anthony Digital Photography 2 February 24th 06 11:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.