Wanting a VR!!

[Kyuss]

Went out today after work...

These were taken in low level light. I'm really beginning to want a 70-300VR. I love taking pictures of animals and it is really tough in low light, balancing the camera while crouched, to get any decent shots!

These two are the only out of about 50 shots that are somewhat decent at all. What do you guys think? VR?

 

[Kyuss]

No love?

 

[EOS_JD]

VR will help with long focal lengths and low light for stationary subjects. In the first I'd say for this you probably need a larger aperture lens however VR would help in the second for sure.

Put both together and you'll have the 70-200 f2.8 VR

 

[Kyuss]

Yeah, I wish I had $1800 to spend on A lens! ha

I barely have enough for the $800 18-200VR.

Thats why I'm going to get the 70-300VR. I think it'll help immensely!
​

 

[EOS_JD]

Yeah, I wish I had $1800 to spend on A lens! ha​

I barely have enough for the $800 18-200VR.​

Thats why I'm going to get the 70-300VR. I think it'll help immensely!​

The only problem with this is the smallish aperture. f2.8 makes a big difference but if you can't afford it, look at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 too. It's a decent lens at a reasonable price.

 

[lostprophet]

The VR on the Nikkor 70-300mm would help with panning shots as the lens has two different VR modes.

It has a NORMAL mode for static subjects and a ACTIVE mode for panning with a subject

My Canon lenses have a panning mode and I use them all the time when I'm shooting birds in flight.


BTW

Love the 2nd shot

 

[Kyuss]

I would want something with a 2.8 but I'm pretty sure I want something that goes 300mm.

Its just once you go to 2.8, the price jumps 2.8 times!! ha ha.

Thank you Lostprophet for the comment!


​

 

[gravy]

you could save some money and get the 55-200VR... it's pretty great for the price. it's cheap enough that you'd probably forget about the 300 haha

 

[EOS_JD]

yes a 300 f2.8 is expensive. I use a 70-200 f2.8L IS (smetimes with the 1.4x) which gives me a 98-280 f4L IS lens

For longer I have the 300 f4L IS and with the 1.4x that's 420mm (without taking into account the crop factor of the camera).

 

[Heck]

I went to the zoo with my new camera D40x and a dx vr 55-200 and had a mono pod on my hip the whole day thinking I was getting good shots by checking my view finder. Well when I got home I seen that I only had 3 true sharp shots out of 160. and they were taken when I was resting on a rail. lol I guess I have to pay my dues for being a noob. lol

I guess my point is maybe a tri or mono pod is they key, I shall soon find out on my next zoo trip with my zoom.

 

[EOS_JD]

I went to the zoo with my new camera D40x and a dx vr 55-200 and had a mono pod on my hip the whole day thinking I was getting good shots by checking my view finder. Well when I got home I seen that I only had 3 true sharp shots out of 160. and they were taken when I was resting on a rail. lol I guess I have to pay my dues for being a noob. lol

I guess my point is maybe a tri or mono pod is they key, I shall soon find out on my next zoo trip with my zoom.

When you get this you should examine the exif info to find out why you were getting out of focus shots. Was shutter speed fast enough, was aperture small enough to get everything in focus or was it just poor focus technique.

The 55-200 is a pretty slow lens and needs decent light however with the VR switched on you should be able to shoot at pretty slow speeds down to around 1/25th whilst maintaining sharp images. But this only holds true for stationary subjects.

Not sure a monopod will help that much in a zoo situation unless indoors.

 

[lostprophet]

I would want something with a 2.8 but I'm pretty sure I want something that goes 300mm.

Its just once you go to 2.8, the price jumps 2.8 times!! ha ha.

Thank you Lostprophet for the comment!


​

closer to 10 times to be honest