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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"VR" Nikon lenses
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 10:16 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 10:29 AM |