Nikon 70-300VR Lens « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Nikon 70-300VR Lens

(42 posts) (22 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

I just bought a Nikon 70-300VR lens last Friday and I've really enjoyed shooting it all weekend long.

My question is, what are the pros and cons of this lens? I ask this so I'll know the maximum of what it can do in all conditions.

So far after 500 shots, I have found the AF to be fast and accurate but I've seen little difference between no VR and normal VR (haven't tried the active VR yet).

The low light shooting in shade and etc has been my biggest surprise, as it does a great job. But in bright daylight past 250mm it seems to wash out on me.

I'm beyond pleased with this lens and I'm not complaining in any manner, just wanting to know what to expect so I can tweak my camera when need be.

Thanks!

Posted 2 years ago #
stanschurman

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 327
offline

I find that normal VR is very apparent on the 70-300.

Posted 2 years ago #
pabnj

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 231
offline

I have the same lens. and love it. It truly is a great lens, and you get a lot for you money.

Just a note about VR, many folks leave VR on all the time, but after reading Thom Hogan's article "All About VR" I turn it off over 1/500th, and noticed much sharper images. The lens does get a litte soft over 200mm, but you still can capture great images. Hope you enjot it.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Why does it matter what we think? You already bought it. Tell US what the pros and cons are according to YOU.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

My findings go along with Pabnj's, but my initial thoughts were the same as Nico's :-/

Posted 2 years ago #
Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

Thanks pabnj, that would explain some of the results I was getting at 1/1000-2000 and the washing out between 250-300mm.

Niko, I stated all of that in my original post. I'll post some exerts from my original post below so you'll be able to comprehend better.

1. ..."I ask this so I'll know the maximum of what it can do in all conditions".
2. ..."just wanting to know what to expect so I can tweak my camera when need be".

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Well bland your wording sounds like you are asking for the pros and cons of the lens.

Bland said:

My question is, what are the pros and cons of this lens?

Posted 2 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

I am also a huge fan of this lens, and my own amateur eyes can't really see the softness people say is there past ~250mm. Except maybe for distant subjects, where I find it either misses focus a lot (could be the body/my own skill though), or really does get somewhat soft. For close subjects, though, I have always been impressed.

Posted 2 years ago #
pabnj

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 231
offline

ShadeofBlue said:
I am also a huge fan of this lens, and my own amateur eyes can't really see the softness people say is there past ~250mm. Except maybe for distant subjects, where I find it either misses focus a lot (could be the body/my own skill though), or really does get somewhat soft. For close subjects, though, I have always been impressed.

I have actually started to notice the same thing for distant subjects, they seemed out of focus for some reason, and I know I have taken really nice shots far away. I sent it in last week to Nikon USA for a look, it also appears that my VR hunts a bit too. Curious as to what their finding are.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

That isn't just a symptom of the 70-300mm VR, even semi-pro and pro lenses can have that issue. The old 200-400mm F4 VR lens had some issues with getting sharp focus on distant subjects as well. I've also noticed the same thing with my 300mm F4 AF-S. I think it is more of an issue of the subject not filling the enter AF area, making it hard for the camera to get a lock.

Posted 2 years ago #
stanlm

member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 40
offline

I had a great time with the 70-300 for fast-moving objects, water, animals, etc, when it was really sunny out. I never ran into the problem of too much light though, but that may be because I like to push up the shutter speed up to try to 'stop' moving objects.

But when it wasn't sunny out, or approaching dusk, at 300mm I thought there were a lot of situations I couldn't get a clear shot, and instead some graininess.

(whether from operator error or not), I found the 300 f4 to fill in the gaps of what I couldn't get with the 70-300 really nicely. I sure learned a lot about what and how I like to shoot with the 70-300 though, I wonder what you'll be shooting with in a couple months, Bland. Good luck.

Posted 2 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

One of my 300mm 2.8's doesn't focus sharp on infinity. Not is it an issue with Af lenses but with old mnual focus lenses. The 70-300mm doesn't have a big problem with distance when the Af is turned off but some of the older lenses do as it looks clear in your viewfinder but is slightly off as an image...

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

stanlm said:
I had a great time with the 70-300 for fast-moving objects, water, animals, etc, when it was really sunny out. I never ran into the problem of too much light though, but that may be because I like to push up the shutter speed up to try to 'stop' moving objects.

But when it wasn't sunny out, or approaching dusk, at 300mm I thought there were a lot of situations I couldn't get a clear shot, and instead some graininess.

(whether from operator error or not), I found the 300 f4 to fill in the gaps of what I couldn't get with the 70-300 really nicely. I sure learned a lot about what and how I like to shoot with the 70-300 though, I wonder what you'll be shooting with in a couple months, Bland. Good luck.

Well that's probably because the 70-300 isn't terribly fast that the 300 f/4 would pick up where the 70-300 leaves off.

I keep hearing good things about this lens, and as long as it stays relatively bright it should be okay to use this lens.

Posted 2 years ago #
shutterdancer

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 327
offline

I think that the 70-300VR is at the top of Nikon's most bang for the buck list. I have had excellent results all the way out to 300mm with mine.Like any lens,you just have to use it yourself to find out what works best for you.BTW,I second turning turning VR off over 1/500.

Posted 2 years ago #
iDunno

senior member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 75
offline

Don't mean to hijack but just a quick question,
do you need to re-focus this lens after zooming in or out?

Posted 2 years ago #
gelu88

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 295
offline

A more general question along this same lines.

Is focus drift while zooming a feature of cheaper lenses? i've never really seen it reviewed.

Posted 2 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

You do have to refocus, I believe. I was shooting fireworks the other day and found I had to refocus when I zoomed, but to be honest, I could have easily been brushing against the focus ring as well. I'll test it out later.

Posted 2 years ago #
foofiebeast

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 427
offline

NikoDoby said:
Why does it matter what we think? You already bought it. Tell US what the pros and cons are according to YOU.

how bout because it's fun and nice to hear what other people say about things you both own. Maybe they've noticed something you haven't, or found a great way to reduce x, or improve y.

Bland was asking a perfectly legitimate question.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

great lens from 70-200, above 200 it's IQ fails fast

Posted 2 years ago #
Bland

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 883
offline

Huge thanks to all of you for the information you have provided me and your willingness to share with others. I can't even start to think how many shots I would of lost without this information but more so, how many shots I will now gain by your generous comments.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

....But just to keep things in perspective, here is a snap of a bike doing over 100MPH that I took with it wide open at 300mm:

If you can blow it up you'll see that it's not too shabby for such a cheap lens?

Posted 2 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

yeah they're running super cheap now as refurbs. . .I might even get one as a travel zoom instead of lugging the good ol' 70-200 around. . .

Posted 2 years ago #
aslightdelay

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 327
offline

I've tried these out on D90's in-store, and I've noticed that at the long end the AF tends to hunt. A lot. I was able to speed things up a bit by helping it along with some manual focus, but if I decide to get one of these as a second lens, I'd kinda like it to work properly. I should note that I was focusing on stuff in the store, so it's not like I was trying to pick out the wings on a mosquito at half a mile away. Also, it happened regardless of what I was trying to focus on. I can understand it hunting on a busy background, but I was also trying for more isolated objects and noticing the same issue.
Has anyone else had this problem?

Posted 2 years ago #
stanlm

member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 40
offline

Yes, I used it for 6 months and remembered there were a few situations the 70-300 hunted and the hunt was a little slow, like when there are branches in front of other branches or I was a little too far from the subject and the AF would look for the background. But the nice part was I could predict when it would have trouble and the 70-300 would reliably take the shot I was waiting for otherwise. And a few times, no exaggeration, a bird sweeping out of the sky and I'd swing my lens out and pray for the best, it would surprise me by getting the shot. I used it a lot for 6 months before I realized I enjoyed using 300mm enough to justify getting the next model up version.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

That's because f5.6 is relatively dim for the AF especially at 300mm.

Posted 2 years ago #