OK-I'm weighing the Nikon 300/f4 AF (can't afford f/2) or Sigma 150-500 AF on my Nikon D90 with $1k to spend on a "Big-Lense". What I have discovered so far is the Nikon 300/f4 does not feature VR (Right or wrong?). Does the Sigma have "VR"? Am I putting to much importance on VR? I'm getting up in age with vision going south and shaking hands so I feel VR is a key. Help the rookie "Cafe"
Big Lenses-How Impt is "VR"
- Thread starter jaybird28
- Start date
The Nikon 300 f4 does not have VR. Don't know about the sigma. I can tell you I have the Nikon 300 f4 and it's a superb lens.
The Nikon 300mm f/4 has no VR. The Sigma on the other hand does, it's known as OS with Sigma but the same thing as Nikon's VR. The question is what do you intend on shooting and in what conditions. For low light or shutter speeds under let's say 1000th of second VR or OS certainly comes in handy. I'd recommend going for the Sigma 150-500 as it covers a wide range and has OS. The Nikon 300 f/4 is still a great lens but the Sig is more versatile IMO.
VR isn't going to freeze subject motion (think wildlife) and VR should be off when the lens is on a tripod (think landscape)
I find VR most useful in low light when I rather sacrifice shutter speed than ISO....I do use it often on the 70-200 and 200/2 that I think its handy. But honestly in my experience not so much on the long 300-600mm lenses. Is it useful? of course, but not necessary.
I find VR most useful in low light when I rather sacrifice shutter speed than ISO....I do use it often on the 70-200 and 200/2 that I think its handy. But honestly in my experience not so much on the long 300-600mm lenses. Is it useful? of course, but not necessary.
Here's something to consider. I bought a new Nikkor 18-200 VR when they first came out. It's an amazing lens, but the AF motor went out and I've been waiting for almost three months for the part.
Modern lenses are very complex and some of them are beginning to age and wear out. Your 300mm f/4 lens uses the motor in your camera body to focus, and although it will focus slower it is less prone to catastrophic failure than an AF-s lens. Vr also depends on small motors in the lens to operate and when they do eventually go the cost could be quite high and you might have to wait awhile to get it repaired.
I have a number of VR lenses and only turn VR on when I'm using a shutter speed like 1/60 or slower.
Certain VR lenses will focus erratically at shutter speeds like 1/1000 or higher. I had this problem with a 70-200 VRll lens when I inadvertently left it on.
Just a few things to think about.
Modern lenses are very complex and some of them are beginning to age and wear out. Your 300mm f/4 lens uses the motor in your camera body to focus, and although it will focus slower it is less prone to catastrophic failure than an AF-s lens. Vr also depends on small motors in the lens to operate and when they do eventually go the cost could be quite high and you might have to wait awhile to get it repaired.
I have a number of VR lenses and only turn VR on when I'm using a shutter speed like 1/60 or slower.
Certain VR lenses will focus erratically at shutter speeds like 1/1000 or higher. I had this problem with a 70-200 VRll lens when I inadvertently left it on.
Just a few things to think about.
Even on full frame, I totally rely on the 70-200 VRII's vibration reduction on a regular basis. I shoot in churches when even sometimes at ISO 3200, I've got to shoot at 200mm and at 1/30 or 1/20th. Without VR, my hit to miss ratio would be pretty crappy, I can tell you that.
I've also heard fantastic things about the 300 f/4. Always struck me as more of a daylight lens.
I've also heard fantastic things about the 300 f/4. Always struck me as more of a daylight lens.
I shoot handheld quite a bit, I alway leave VR on.
Here is a recent thread where I asked the same question about the 300/4 AF-S:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=325348
I have since decided to buy the current 300/4 without VR, and possibly upgrade when a replacement VR lens comes out. Given that the replacement has not been announced yet, that could still be years down the track.
Another thing to consider about the 300/4 AF-S: It does still have an aperture ring, so it can be used on a manual Film camera. The AF-S VR replacement, if it ever comes out, will most likely not have an aperture ring anymore.
https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=325348
I have since decided to buy the current 300/4 without VR, and possibly upgrade when a replacement VR lens comes out. Given that the replacement has not been announced yet, that could still be years down the track.
The current version of the 300/4 is an AF-S lens with a build in focus motor. It does not have VR though.
Another thing to consider about the 300/4 AF-S: It does still have an aperture ring, so it can be used on a manual Film camera. The AF-S VR replacement, if it ever comes out, will most likely not have an aperture ring anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi.
I use the Sigma 150-500 mm a lot in the past three years. For my wildlife shots - a lot of BIF and animal "action" shots - I really like OS. I can turn it off if I don't need it (i. e. if the shutter speeds are really fast enough, like 1/1000th @ 500 mm), but it's nice to have it available when needed.
Sometimes, the action slows down and a longer shutter speed is sufficient to keep the subject without blur. In this cases, it is nice to be able to handhold longer shutter speeds (like 1/60th) without worrying. In addition, length and weight make the Sigma easily usable without Monopod or Tripod, even for longer periods of time.
The 150-500 really is a great lens, if you have enough light available. I can compare with a 200/f2 + TC20 E III, and the Sigma is not really worse.
Best regards
Mattes
I use the Sigma 150-500 mm a lot in the past three years. For my wildlife shots - a lot of BIF and animal "action" shots - I really like OS. I can turn it off if I don't need it (i. e. if the shutter speeds are really fast enough, like 1/1000th @ 500 mm), but it's nice to have it available when needed.
Sometimes, the action slows down and a longer shutter speed is sufficient to keep the subject without blur. In this cases, it is nice to be able to handhold longer shutter speeds (like 1/60th) without worrying. In addition, length and weight make the Sigma easily usable without Monopod or Tripod, even for longer periods of time.
The 150-500 really is a great lens, if you have enough light available. I can compare with a 200/f2 + TC20 E III, and the Sigma is not really worse.
Best regards
Mattes
The Sigma 150-500 is my 'light' long lens (compared to the Nikon 200-400 or 500). Sometimes the latter are just too large and heavy to carry.
The extra reach is at times offset by the limitations imposed by a slower speed. Adequate light is important with this lens. You can get some blurring shooting wildlife that's moving and I've found that focusing speed can get awfully slow in marginal light. I had this issue shooting elk in RMNP in the late afternoon. The Sigma is right at the limit of the capabilities of Nikon's autofocus system.
The f/4 on the Nikon 300mm buys you a faster shutter speed at the cost of shorter reach.
The Sigma gives you your money's worth but be aware of its limitations.
The extra reach is at times offset by the limitations imposed by a slower speed. Adequate light is important with this lens. You can get some blurring shooting wildlife that's moving and I've found that focusing speed can get awfully slow in marginal light. I had this issue shooting elk in RMNP in the late afternoon. The Sigma is right at the limit of the capabilities of Nikon's autofocus system.
The f/4 on the Nikon 300mm buys you a faster shutter speed at the cost of shorter reach.
The Sigma gives you your money's worth but be aware of its limitations.
Interesting - I've never had this problem with any of my VR lenses, certainly not the 70-200 VRII...
+1
I do not believe I have ever had VR off, even on a mono-pod...
Newer versions of VR have a tripod mode. Very useful.
IMO unless you're always shooting from a tripod, VR is almost essential when shooting long glass. Once you get used to having VR it becomes addicting. Years ago I shot the 300/4 AF-S (great lens for the money), but sold it after moving on to longer glass. If I really want something close to 300mm now I use my 70-200VRII +TC14EII. I also have the 70-300VR but the IQ is not in the same league at 300mm.
I have the same love-hate relationship with my Canon 400/5.6 -- nice, compact, super-sharp, fast focusing 400mm, but I sure wish it had IS.
I have the same love-hate relationship with my Canon 400/5.6 -- nice, compact, super-sharp, fast focusing 400mm, but I sure wish it had IS.
I haven't used VR in some time now. If I'm shooting action and it's too dark for the shutter speed I'm after I simply don't shoot (or use a flash if possible) and in other cases I prefer using a tripod or a monopod.
VR is a very useful tool in some situations.
basically, when handholding at shutter speeds between ~1/60 and ~1/500'ish, VR can help.
as mentioned, at high shutter speeds VR can be downright bad news. VR doesn't play well with tripods.
VR is NOT a set-and-forget function. knowing when to turn it on and when to turn it off is important to get the best out of it.
i have two VR lenses. a 105/2.8VR macro and a 200/2ii. both of these get used handheld most of the time and VR is a great addition to the toolkit with these lenses.
my 400/2.8 on the other hand is an older af-sii model and lacks VR. given i use it on a monopod all the time, i really don't feel like i'm missing out on anything.
Similar threads
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/