70-300 VR nikon, not so great at 300mm?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Daves602, May 16, 2007.

  1. I was believing all the hype about this lens being an excellent lens until I read a review that praised it up until 200mm, from there on it crashes out in the optical quality department.
    For those of you who own it or have used it, at 300mm, is this a fair assumption or is someone yanking my chain?:QuestionM
     
  2. It depends on what your comparing it to. If you're going to compare it to your 70-200 at its longest, you'll probably feel shortchanged.

    I get results that are pretty good at 300mm, all things under consideration. It's not horrible but not tack sharp at any aperture at 300mm. A bit of USM in photoshop fixes it for me. I don't expect it to be great at 300mm, but it is very good.

    Above 200mm, I find my copy is very good and sharp up until 250mm or so.
     
  3. Gale

    Gale

    978
    Jan 26, 2005
    Viera Fl
  4. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    Is it the sharpest lens at 300mm...no. Then again it is only a $500 lens so you can't expect too much.

    Is it sharp...seems sharp enough to me.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Gale

    Gale

    978
    Jan 26, 2005
    Viera Fl
    Shows the images from the 70-300VR at 300mm and also with the 1.4 tc 400mm+ at long end
    Dont know what else to say....
    It is a good lens , sharp and good at 300 and good with a 1.4 tc

    Just shot outside at the trees.

    Sharpness and lack of CA :>))))))
     
  6. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Anyone know what the 55-200VR looks like at 200mm compared to the 70-300?

    _IF_ the 55-200VR was the same IQ @ 200mm as the 70-300VR...A better combination of lenses would be the 55-200VR + the 300 F4. This would retain IQ out to 300mm, lacking VR but gaining a full stop. Priced well under a 70-200VR+TC.

    Here's another idea: What happens when you toss a TC on an 80-200mm F2.8? What sort of IQ is lost? If you took the 1-stop loss, you'd have a 112-280mm F4. If you took a 2-stop loss, you could effectively have a 160-400 F5.6 lens. Lacking VR, but this would be several hundred less than a 80-400VR.

    With how cheap the 80-200 F2.8's have been going for on eBay, this sounds like a very tempting combination for getting out to the 300-400mm range affordably.
     
  7. Gale

    Gale

    978
    Jan 26, 2005
    Viera Fl
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  8. Neil M.

    Neil M. Guest

    Peet,

    Are those bird images crops, or were you able to get that close to them?
     
  9. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
  10. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    They are cropped slightly...but I was fairly close to the first bird (I was in the car) and the hawk is only slightly cropped as I was only about 20 feet away.
     
  11. Neil M.

    Neil M. Guest

    Peet,

    Thanks for the response. I have been having difficulty getting nice sharp shots of birds. The darned things won't stand still for me, lol.
     
  12. Here are three pics I shot at 300mm with the 70-300 VR.

    Click Here

    I like it even at 300 mm.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  13. That could also be the difference between 300mm at 1/125th and 180mm at 1/1600th second. I still think the tiger is quite sharp though. You can count the hairs.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2007
  14. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    What's the lowest shutter you can realistically use the VR @ 300mm handheld?
     
  15. AndyE

    AndyE

    871
    May 2, 2005
    Vienna, Austria
    Dave,
    some my 70-300 VR pics.

    regards,
    Andy

    @ 280mm
    original.

    @ 300mm, handhold 1/320sec
    View attachment 95781
     
  16. rvink

    rvink

    Mar 21, 2006
    New Zealand
    Photozone has reviews of the 55-200DX (non VR) and the 70-300VR:
    55-200DX review
    70-300VR review
    The 70-300VR does better at 200mm than the 55-200DX. I guess we will have to wait for them to test the 55-200VR, but my guess is that it will preform similarly to the older lens.

    Nice shots Andy! I love seeing the craters in the moon.
     
  17. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    rvink: the 55-200VR has a slightly different optical formula to the DX (because of the VR I think), so we may get a surprise...
     
  18. AndyE

    AndyE

    871
    May 2, 2005
    Vienna, Austria
    Roland,
    I have the new 55-200VR

    My experience is a bit mixed with it. It maintains better its sharpness at the long end, vs. the 70-300VR. It is reasonably sharp at 200mm. It exhibits strong vignetting and get this grainy look at 200mm. Its probably me, but I found it hard to use the VR with such a light lens. It has almost no inertia to help stabilizing it- its easier to use the 70-300VR at 300mm with VR, than the 55-200mm at 200mm.

    Andy

    vignetting (can be solved in Capture )
    original.

    visible flare
    View attachment 95783

    it has this grainy look at the long end (like some of the consumer telephotos)
    View attachment 95784

    I was surprised that it is actually a bit longer than the 18-200mm
    View attachment 95785
     
Loading...