What should I expect from my 70-300VR

[lvcrtrs]

I've seen many discussions on "better glass". I have the Nikon 70-300VR. I didn't think to take a few pics at the 70 end so you could see how far away these guys looked. So both of these are taken with the 300 end. Then, I cropped to the point where they started to degrade.

Do you think these are reasonable or should I expect to be getting something better. Of course these were a bit challenging for the camera because they just looked like dark blips in the water from where I was. Honestly, I'm impressed but wonder what would be on my wish list if I had a chance to get another long zoom. Professional bazillion dollar zooms excluded of course.

1. Frog at 300mm

2. Frog cropped

3. Snapper at 300mm

4. Snapper cropped

 

[PhotoXopher]

Not sure how much more you're expecting from photos with hardly any subject matter showing. I'd say you and your gear did an incredible job with the conditions at hand.

 

[bdavis]

Not sure what you're asking but in my opinion, the photos aren't really that wonderful

If you want good zoom pictures, getting one of those "professional bazillion dollar zooms" is about the only way to go from here. What is your budget? Have you looked at 3rd party brands like Tamron and Sigma?

 

[itznfb]

really you're only options beyond 300mm for nikon are the nikon 80-400 for about $1500 or the sigma 150-500mm for about $1000. anything better and you're looking at $5,000+

obviously there are other options, but the 70-300 you have, the 80-400mm and the 150-500mm do not work well with teleconverters.

 

[KmH]

Your lens is performing just fine. No problems there.

Your crop of the frog is almost a 300% crop and the frog still looks good.

Any expectations beyond that aren't realistic.

 

[lvcrtrs]

KmH, that's what I need to know. I figured someone would know just how much detail I should get or how much I should be able to crop using that lens.

Also, if in people's experienced opinions I cropped too much and what I thought was ok really wasn't and I shouldn't go that far.

Can you explain the 300% crop to me. Thanks, Sherry

 

[KmH]

Your original image was say 3872 pixels x 2592 pixels.

A 100% crop would halve those numbers 1936x1296
200% 968x648
300% 484x324

As long as you retain enough image quality to suit you, crop as much as you want. If you need the image for commercial purposes, there's a limit.

What good is a 10 MP camera if you throw away all but 2 MP of the image. Long lenses are intended to negate the need to crop.

The trouble is the longer a lense gets, the more it costs, the more it weighs, the easier it is to have camera shake, yada, yada, yada.

Click this link

 

[lvcrtrs]

KmH,
All I can say is ooooooooooooo baby! The price is in the realm of reason. The sample shots had some impressive examples taken with the D90. Even the "most helpful critical review" wasn't bad. I just can't believe you can handhold that monster. I'm thinking Christmas list, (birthday comes sooner though).

 

[RJohnston]

For such a crop with any lens your results are good.
Even with a longer lens, hand held it might not be as sharp without the VR...

At 80, have been involved in photography now for 73 years and VR lenses are virtually a must for me. Used to be able to shoot at 1/15th leaning against something like a tree or wall and those days are gone forever.

 

[lvcrtrs]

RJ, i never could hand hold at 1/15. Wasn't the rule never under 1/60 without a flash. I had to relearn hand holding SLRs when I got this D90. I came from the land of A-1 and AE-1s. I remember take a breath, let it out half way, shoot, finish breathing. A lot of effort. I must say as we get dragged into the future, at times there are some good changes - like VR. Oh let's not forget my best friend Garmin. There's a futuristic concept I can't live without now.