300 2.8 VR?

tevo · Oct 4, 2013

I am close to being able to purchase a 300 2.8. Is VR really worth it? I don't think I can spring for the VRII, but I'm wondering if the first VR model is really worth it. How do the last few iterations of the lens do in terms of sharpness? I know the latest one with the Nano Crystal Coat will fare much better shooting into the sun, and if it is anything like the 70-200 VRII it will be tack sharp. Are the older models just as sharp?

EDIT: Purchased a 300 2.8 AF-S II. It is insane.

Derrel · Oct 4, 2013

All the Nikkor 300/2.8's are very sharp. I do not think VR is that useful on this specific lens, except for some people who will use it quite a bit. The image magnification is pretty high, and the resolution is very high too, so the SHUTTER SPEED USED MUST BE fast enough to stop SUBJECT movement, using a very high-grade lens that MAGNIFIES every small detail. That means that in order to even make a decent image, the shutter speed used must be fast enough to STOP ALL movement of the subject.

VR is pretty useful on shorter lenses, where the idea is to be able to stop the lens down to say, f/8 to f/13 and shoot slow-speed, hand-held stuff, on-location, with no tripod. VR is superb on shorter lenses, and it is fantastic for panning; VR stops the up-and-down camera movement that comes with slow-speed panning at speeds like 1/3 to 1/40 second. VR is great aboard boats, or when shooting in windy areas, like at the ocean beaches, or along the COlumbia River, where gusty 15- to 25-knot winds are common in the afternoons, and windsurfers stack up like foam on the beaches...

But in terms of the "necessity" for VR in a 300/2.8...for many uses it's NOT that use-able...the magnification means the SPEED, the sheer SPEED, simply must be faster than VR is good at, meaning 1/500 and faster, so...no, VR on a 300/2.8 is not a necessity, and yes, the older models are VERY fine lenses. Now, at dawn and dusk, when shooting off a monopod and doing things like birds, panning with them and such, VR can be helpful, yes.

djacobox372 · Oct 4, 2013

Very heavy lenses, like the 300mm 2.8, aren't prone to vibration and hence don't benefit much from vr

The older afi 300mm is a good bargain. As are the af versions provided you have a body with a strong after motor.

KmH · Oct 4, 2013

Nikon VR explained

SCraig · Oct 5, 2013

While I do respect those who have expressed opinions I have to take the opposite position. In my opinion VR makes it possible to get a good to decent shot that would otherwise be missed. While not shot with the 300 f/2.8 I offer the following photo as an example:

This was shot with my 70-300 at 270mm, and if you look at the EXIF data you'll see that it was shot at ISO 400, f/5.6, and 1/6 second. It's not a great shot, and admittedly I was leaning against a fence post to support myself, but you have to admit that for 1/6 second at 270mm hand-held it isn't bad. Yes, I could have gone to ISO 1600 which would have given me a whopping 1/24 second shutter speed or even ISO 3200 which would have taken me to 1/50 second, but this shot was really more of a test. The cougar was in deep shade, it was hot and he was perfectly still, so I decided to see how slow I could go and get a decent shot. ISO 200 at 1/3 second didn't work

VR does have limitations, and it isn't perfect, but in my personal opinion it has allowed me to get a lot of shots that I otherwise would have missed. That is something valuable to me, and something that I'm willing to pay for.

djacobox372 · Oct 5, 2013

SCraig said:
While I do respect those who have expressed opinions I have to take the opposite position. In my opinion VR makes it possible to get a good to decent shot that would otherwise be missed. While not shot with the 300 f/2.8 I offer the following photo as an example:

This was shot with my 70-300 at 270mm, and if you look at the EXIF data you'll see that it was shot at ISO 400, f/5.6, and 1/6 second. It's not a great shot, and admittedly I was leaning against a fence post to support myself, but you have to admit that for 1/6 second at 270mm hand-held it isn't bad. Yes, I could have gone to ISO 1600 which would have given me a whopping 1/24 second shutter speed or even ISO 3200 which would have taken me to 1/50 second, but this shot was really more of a test. The cougar was in deep shade, it was hot and he was perfectly still, so I decided to see how slow I could go and get a decent shot. ISO 200 at 1/3 second didn't work

VR does have limitations, and it isn't perfect, but in my personal opinion it has allowed me to get a lot of shots that I otherwise would have missed. That is something valuable to me, and something that I'm willing to pay for.

The 70-300 is many many times lighter than the 300mm 2.8--vr is far more useful on lighter hand holdeable lenses.

SCraig · Oct 5, 2013

djacobox372 said:
The 70-300 is many many times lighter than the 300mm 2.8--vr is far more useful on lighter hand holdeable lenses.

The Nikon 300 f/2.8 isn't many, many times heavier than the Sigma 150-500 that I also use frequently, it weighs 2 pounds more. My Sigma also has OS on it and I wouldn't have the lens without it.

djacobox372 · Oct 6, 2013

SCraig said:
The Nikon 300 f/2.8 isn't many, many times heavier than the Sigma 150-500 that I also use frequently, it weighs 2 pounds more. My Sigma also has OS on it and I wouldn't have the lens without it.

So do you disagree that weight of the lens lessons vibrations? The law of inertia would disagree.

I guess a lot of it depends on what u shoot, most people using long lenses are shooting sports or wildlife, which means shutter speeds quick enough to render vr/os moot.

SCraig · Oct 6, 2013

djacobox372 said:
SCraig said:

The Nikon 300 f/2.8 isn't many, many times heavier than the Sigma 150-500 that I also use frequently, it weighs 2 pounds more. My Sigma also has OS on it and I wouldn't have the lens without it.

Click to expand...

So do you disagree that weight of the lens lessons vibrations? The law of inertia would disagree.

No, I do not disagree with the laws of physics nor did I say that I did. However the other end of the spectrum is that many people have trouble holding a 4 to 6 pound lens steady and induce vibrations from their hand muscles. I do maintain that VR is a handy addition on ANY lens when it is needed, and when it isn't simply turn it off.

I guess a lot of it depends on what u shoot, most people using long lenses are shooting sports or wildlife, which means shutter speeds quick enough to render vr/os moot.

It depends on the light and not the subject. I shoot birds and wildlife a great deal, and frequently in the morning , especially in the woods, the light is quite dim. Cloudy days are the same; quite dim and causing slower shutter speeds. Sports at night, same situation. I got a good shot of a Cougar at the zoo here a few weeks ago using my 70-300 at 270mm handheld, ISO 400, f/5.6 and 1/6 (that's one-sixth second). Admittedly I was leaning against a fence post to get some stability and the cat was very still, but I got the shot and without VR I don't think it would have been nearly as good.

Derrel · Oct 6, 2013

djacobox372 said:
I guess a lot of it depends on what u shoot, most people using long lenses are shooting sports or wildlife, which means shutter speeds quick enough to render vr/os moot.

That was exactly the point I was getting at. On a still subject, like the big cat at rest, the speed of 1/6 second was fast enough to render a decent, usable image at web size. At ISO 800, the speed would have been 1/12 second; at 1600 the speed would have been 1/24 second; at ISO 3200 the exposure would have been 1/48 second. Add in TWO full f/stops for the added light-gathering power of the f/2.8 lens as opposed to the zoom lens's f/5.6 max aperture at longer lengths, and a shutter speed of 1/100 second at f/2.8 at ISO 1600, or 1/200 second at f/2.8 at ISO 3200 would have been easily achieved. In DAYLIGHT, which is pretty close to full-spectrum light, Tevo's newer FX Nikon body would have shot that big cat at ISO 3200 pretty well, at 1/200 second. The 300/2.8 and a D3 or D700 is going to need to be ON A MONOPOD for most mortal men...and a good monopod with a heavy lens and a nearly 4-lb camera on the back is a well-balanced rig.

A 300/2.8 "on the stick" is pretty easy to shoot without VR. Of course, if the SUBJECT is in motion, the VR does nothing good--except on panning shots.

What's surprising is how slooooow one can sometimes go, and get a usable image on a still subject, especially with a monopod or a really good brace or rest. A couple years ago, I switched the VR OFF on my 70-200 and shot it with the VR OFF for almost a month--accidentally!!!...I was SHOCKED...I had shot and shot and shot with the VR set to OFF, and when I flashed back back to the situation when I had switched it off, I suddenly realized that I had not needed it for a lot of situations.I THOUGHT I had been using VR for danged near a full month! My close-up vision kinda sucks, but I can see THROUGH the camera great. That was kind of an eye-opener for me. I'd been hand-holding in what I THOUGHT was auto-pan-detect VR mode...but it had actually been set to OFF...and the shots had looked good...

That was a real lesson to me...kind of shocking...almost ten years with a VR lens...

PaulWog · Oct 6, 2013

Just based on my experience with my 70-300 VR (a hand-holdable and light zoom lens), I have found VR to be an extremely satisfying feature.

I would like to be able to shoot at f4 throughout the range, but f4.5-f5.6 isn't too bad. I find a quicker aperture often ruins the shot: I end up with too much bokeh, and a lot of the subject isn't tack-sharp since it's going out of focus. What that means is I end up requiring a slightly higher ISO outside of decent daylight, and VR becomes very useful. I took some shots (at an owl & eagle recovery place, so everything was close enough to fill the frame at 200-300mm on DX), and a lot of my shots could've been a lot better if I had stopped down to f7.1-f8. I shot primarily at f4-f5.6, and I ended up with parts of the birds being slightly out of focus on occasion (not necessarily in a bad way, but it's nice to have 100% of the subject in complete focus, rather than the eyes, 90% of the beak, and the face, and only parts of the body). I still had tons of bokeh, and the subject isolation was excellent. I can't think of many situations where I've wanted to take a telephoto shot quicker than maybe an f3.5 aperture, and usually that's at 70-120mm (on DX), so the 85mm 1.8G really fills up that slot on a DX body.

Really, I think it's all situational. If you don't know the situations you're going to be in, it might be better to be safe than sorry. I think stopping down is something that isn't nearly talked about enough compared to getting a quick aperture and a quick shot: I mean, after all, who is your photography for? Other photographers, or for everyone?

tevo · Oct 6, 2013

Thank you all for your replies.

At this point, I've moved past the desire for VR, and will happily purchase an AF-S version for the right price. How do the 2 compare in sharpness?