DSLRUsers.com

G'day all,
Was considering the Nikon VR lenses, but don't have much knowledge of them... Hoping someone has some experience or can point me in the right direction before I lay-out the many $$$...

The 70-200 VR is recognised as a very sharp lens, but having recently used a 70-300 and finding myself regularly using the full 300mm zoom makes me think the 200mm might be too short for me (I like taking animal shots)... Hopefully the VR will mean my shaky hands can then take a sharp shot...

Anyone have any experience or knowledge about the differences between the 200mm and 300mm Nikon VR lenses? Am I better off buying the 70-200 and a tele-conv for example?

What are your opinions/advice??? PS: I hope I've posted this thread in the right spot, apologies if I should have posted this in another forum heading...

Cheers,
Mudder

I played with Birddog's 70-200VR with his 2X tele at the last meet...
some pics here
http://potofgrass.ath.cx/gallery/d70syd

Mudder you are up in the dollars now. I would sit down and think on this overnight. I have just ordered the 70-200VR today and will explain my thought process. The 70-200 is a very usable range, more so than a 300 prime. You have probably read about this lens if not I can point you in the right direction. This lens and its predecessor the 80-200 are in a popular range and in some ways are the flagship model of the volume sellers. It has both AFS (motor in lens) and VR. So I bought the 70-200 because that is a range I will use more often and I am considering a teleconverter right now, either the 1.4 (most likely) or the 1.7 (newish and hard to find tests on). The 2 is supposedly not as sharp, but the 1.4 gets rave reviews that you can't even tell it is a tc (which is not the case with my old ones).

The 70-200 is $1420US through Birddog (unbelievable value!) via HKsupplies. The non VR 300 2.8 is $3500US. THe VR will be more. Talk s/h hyundai price. The 300 f4 (non VR) is $890US.

Dollar wise you can see why I chose the 70-200 but also
a) it is in a focal range I will use more often (you may not)
b) with the 1.4 tc I have VR and is indistiguishable from no tc for 280mm (but you lose an f stop)
c) a tc is small to carry, a 300 vr wont be and I still would need a shorter lens
d) I have a nikkor 400mm 5.6 MF (you probably dont have one)
e) I would still want a 70-200 as this is a good range
f) shall I mention dollars again?

good luck and ask away

Thanks Glen,

That's just the sort of info I was hoping for, thanks it's very much appreciated...

Re: the cost of the NON-VR=$3500 + VR = more... Hooley !@&*ing dooley... I didn't have details on price but I think that's forced a decision for me... Doh!

I'll digest and have a ponder but it looks like I might be chatting with Birdog...

Thanks again for the info...

Cheers,
Mudder

mudder wrote:Anyone have any experience or knowledge about the differences between the 200mm and 300mm Nikon VR lenses? Am I better off buying the 70-200 and a tele-conv for example?

As Glen and other members already said I don't repeat.

I can give you the figure of zoom lens in imported prices with lens only

300/2.8 VR lens estimated over from 8-10G
200-400 VR estimated less than 10G
200/2.8 VR over 6G

Well mudder, make up your mind and you can have it under your Xmas tree and go out shooting bird, wildlife on Xmas day I'll come with you or hover a chopper overhead the bulls wildlife animal and you shoot them with comfy.

Mudder the other thought is that 70-200 is a pro lens but in the price range "normal" people buy and can afford. As Onyx said today at Birddogs price you could resell and break even or if unused make a profit. A 300 VR will only be made in 2.8 so lets guess $5k US. You would want to be selling the photos (or well off). If you could survive non VR the 300 f4 is great Gary has one, $890 US new or about $990 S/h in aus.

Cutting to the chase I would by the 70-200 (I would say that, today I have) a tc, either 1.4 or 1.7 then you have vr from 70mm through to minimum 280mm, then if you need more reach buy a s/h 400mm or 500mm manual focus from the states, an old one for about $1k US or I bought my 400 5.6 for a couple of hundred is aus.

Good luck

For Glen to read:

Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II US$330

I'm smiling Birddog, realise I need a New Years Day present, maybe a Boxing day present in between Chritmas and my birthday or maybe an Australia Day present.

My decision is not easy as there are few reports on the 1.7, though the 1.4 with 70-200 gets unanimous rave reviews. A present will be coming, will have to wait a least a week or people might think the fedex guy is having an affair with my wife

Glen,
Be happy, everyday is a holiday and we all have present, at least a kiss from the wife.

Hi Mudder,

Have you considered the 80-400VR? It's cheaper then the 70-200VR. I know I've read a lot of varying reviews but there is nothing else with the reach, the price and the VR ability. Also, I have read that the 70-200VR with a 2x teleconverter is not as sharp as the 80-400VR @ 400mm. Don't know how it compares to the 70-200VR with 1.7x.

Mudder, just a quick thought, depending on what you are taking shots of, buy a tripod. It makes any lens better, add the $250 for the 70-300 and off you go. Still wouldn't match the 70-200 with tc for sharpness etc though.

Yes Birddy, I am thankful everyday just to be alive and to have had the good times I have had so far in my life. If I died today I figure I had a better run than I expected. My memories are great, so tomorrow is a bonus. I smile everyday

I couldnt agree more... In lower light situations (indoor etc... anything where shutter speeds drop below ~1/100) my rejection rate goes up dramatically due to camera shake...

I have the 70-300G lens and I cant wait to use it on my new legs!

Nicole, you are dead right on the 400mm comparo, I have read that with the 2X tc is not super sharp. The 80-400 doesn't have AFS and is a little slow to focus by comparison, which may not be suitable for animals. Birddog has both and Gary and I have one coming each so if you get to Sydney you could do a comparo or try find a shop in Melbourne with both in stock. Maybe Vanbar?

Glen, I went to Vanbar on Monday but didn't think to take my D70 with me (silly me). They did have both in stock but I couldn't give them a test as they didn't have a camera available.

In the end I've ordered the 80-400VR. I've read the slow focus issue is mainly an issue for fast moving animals (e.g. birds in flight). For other animals it should be ok though. This was a consideration for me as well as I'll be interested in taking lots of animal pics when we're O/S at the end of the year.

G'day all,

Nicole:
I currently have a Sigma 70-300 APO which seems a good enough lens for me (and seems to be enough reach), but my shaky hands bugger up a lot of my shots, so I find myself taking multiple shots assuming I've stuffed some of them up... That's why I'm considering the VR lens... The 80-400 has great reach but seems to be a slower lens, both in focussing (focus by the body I think, not within the lens like AF-S) and the aperture... I have missed a few bird shots with the Sigma because that was too slow to focus so maybe the same thing would happen with the 80-400??? Dunno... Wonder about the focus speed diff between the Sigma 70-300 APO and the 80-400VR??? Although I suppose the 70-200 with a tele-conv loses 1+ stop... Hmmm... Good thought... Hmmm...

Glen:
I have a tripod but don't use it for much other than waterfall shots, or low-light landscape stuff as I find it awkward to carry around and also takes time to setup so I'd lose those "moment" shots of animals etc... Maybe it's best if I find a shop with both and have a play, although I'm not sure whether any stores would have both expensive lenses in stock... I'll have a sticky nose around... I'll try Vanbars...

Birddog:
Geeesssss, you are tempting me.... Like a little boy in a lolly-shop I'm drooling... What's the damage on the 80-400 VR? I much appreciate your assistance...

Cheers and thanks all for the advice, tis much appreciated...
Mudder

Check out these bird photos taken by a lady in the US with the 80-400VR:

http://www.jczinn.com/birds/birdsdigi.htm

Nicole, both excellent lenses and to be honest I almost picked up an 80-400 on ebay (with F100 $1425) but a hard assesment of how many lenses I should own ( and dollars invested or is that blown?) led me to pick one or the other. Plus I love fast glass with good boke so the 70-200 would have still haunted me. That was my decision, but I still believe the 80-400 is really an everything lens, with that great focal range.

Just a quick question are you buyibg through Birddog? He posted a great price here http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php ... sc&start=0 of $1160 US. If you have ordered for more I would the cancel and order through him. I am going through Birddog and so is Gary. Hard to jusge someone over the net, but many of us in Sydney have met Birddy and he is a generous honest guy. My money is with him.

I think you will love the 80-400 I did when it was on my D70 and the VR is great on such a long lens and really works

Nicole,
I knew her she's janet, met her once in the US last Nov.
She love her 80-400VR very much and she used it nearly everyday

Glen, ordered the lens with Birddog on Monday night. Very helpful and nice guy. His offer was too good to refuse and I could no longer resist len lust.

Birddog, her photos helped me decide to buy the lens. Very impressive!

Nicole,
She's bird hunter!!!!!
Your 80-400 should be with your hubby on Friday, please tell him keep his eyes on it.

Teleconverters don't really affect image quality in the way a lens does - it merely magnifies things - the image as well as the lens' flaws. That means if attached to a sh^thouse lens, you'll be magnifying all its optical flaws as well. This is generally why teleconverters are not recommended for consumer grade zooms (variable aperture f/4-5.6 varieties), aside from the difficulties of AF with an effective max. aperture of f/8.

It also explain why an 80-400VR at 400mm is reported to be better than a 70-200VR with a 2xTC. The 70-200 has to resolve twice as much detail as it was designed/engineered to do, which is a big ask of ANY lens. Now imaging placing that TC on a lesser lens - the image quality would be severely degraded, which is why nature photog Bjorn Rorslett of Naturfotograf.com recommends TCs only for prime lenses (primes traditionally have better optical quality than zooms, but lately this is being challenged).

Nicole, those shots are great! If you get 1/10th of those you would have to be happy. I know you are already smiling with the price you paid Now it is just the wait, maybe tomorrow or Friday?

Mudder, that is a relatively light lens so can move on a tripod, but legs still help a lot. Nicole has done the work for you try Vanbar as they have both and see which you prefer, as Nicole said bring your D70 and card then think at home while looking at the shots. Dont be afraid to drag the salesman outside and do a real test then analyse the shots and exif later.

Good luck

Birddog, will do. He has a dinner on Friday night so he said he'll stay a bit later if need be. Can't wait for the weekend.

Nicole wrote:Birddog, will do. He has a dinner on Friday night so he said he'll stay a bit later if need be. Can't wait for the weekend.

They will deliver before 5:00pm.
Enjoy and take care

Onyx, you are well read, do you have any opinion on the three afs tele's? The 1.4 gets rave reviews with the 70-200 supposedly indistinguishable from a prime, the 2 gets a ok review (which at its price is not acceptable) and there is very little on the 1.7. My choice is between the 1.4 or 1.7, any thoughts?

1.4. for now my case.
I tried the 1.7 at Maxwell while ago once they first got, it has AF-S, it's nice to combine with the 70-200, and perhaps I'll get one later.

Mudder
Carrying a f2.8 300mm lens is like carrying a length of concrete sewerage pipe. Some phots fit little luggage wheels to them so they can trolley them around. Go the 70-200 and a 2x teleconvertor and you'll be in photography heaven. Buy the boys a beer with the money you save.

Matt that is the best advice I have seen all night. Mudder, would you like my or Matt's address to send the case to?

Glen wrote:Onyx, you are well read, do you have any opinion on the three afs tele's? The 1.4 gets rave reviews with the 70-200 supposedly indistinguishable from a prime, the 2 gets a ok review (which at its price is not acceptable) and there is very little on the 1.7. My choice is between the 1.4 or 1.7, any thoughts?

Glen, I suppose my well read-ness is a remnant of my university days. If I don't receive continual intellectual stimulation, I get crazy and engage in stupid behaviour like gambling... so I make a point of researching things of interest to me to keep me sane.

I suppose the 1.7 is a bit too new to be receiving wide review coverage. It's unique in that it loses only 1.5 stops while providing 1.7x increase in focal length. From limited user reports on Nikonians forums, it seems to offer a fairly good compromise. It's also peerless with no other brands or third party makers having a 1.7TC (not that it would mean much other than for 'pose' value in this case). In your case, you have a 400mm prime and a gap in coverage between 200 and 400mm, and a 1.7 on your 70-200 would bridge that gap more so than a 1.4 would (280mm vs 340mm). If I were you, I'd go the 1.7 - but ultimately Glen, it's your money and your choice.