Nikon 70-300 vs 70-300VR

[deltatango]

Hi all,

I am currently using the 70-300 (non-VR) and I find the lens to produce rather soft images at focal lengths between 250mm and 300mm. Hence I'm considering to switch to the VR version of the lens, which will also help me shoot clearer photos in low light, which I often do.

I'd like to ask your experiences with using this 70-300VR and how does it compare with the non-VR in terms of sharpness. Quality is most important to me.

Thanks in advance.

 

[yyD70S]

I had both at some point in time; enough to assure you that despite the fact that the VR version is slightly soft somewhat between 270-300mm wide open (ie, f5.6), it produces images with better sharpness and contrast (especially) straight out-of-the-cam to warrant the $ premium over the G version.

In fact, in good light, it is a very good lens all the way up till 270mm and still very usuable thenafter. Being AFS, it naturally focuses faster (compared to the G). And being slightly heavier, it balances better with the DSLR.

 

[deltatango]

To add on, I normally will use this lens to shoot around f/7.1 or f/8. How does this lens perform at such apertures? The non-VR is still soft at these apertures.

 

[baggiolee]

here a rough comparison of my sold 70-300mm vr taken at 120mm and 270mm. it's quite sharp for me b4 200mm. beyond that, it's still ok for me.

both r unedited 100% crop. f4.5-5.6 roughly as i never stop down.

120mm

270mm

 

[s1221ljc]

Hi all,

I am currently using the 70-300 (non-VR) and I find the lens to produce rather soft images at focal lengths between 250mm and 300mm. Hence I'm considering to switch to the VR version of the lens, which will also help me shoot clearer photos in low light, which I often do.

I'd like to ask your experiences with using this 70-300VR and how does it compare with the non-VR in terms of sharpness. Quality is most important to me.

Thanks in advance.

I am using the VR version of this lens. Even at 300mm I find it shockingly sharp. The VR really helped for hand held photo taking but proper technique still important & under really low light, dont expect miracles Never imagine can take this kind of pictures with such a long heavy lens which is nigh impossible for old manual focus lens.

The pics posted by baggiolee speak for themselves :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[chanjyj]

70-300VR is a surprisingly sharp lens. That said, your shooting technique will make alot of difference in apparent sharpness rather than the lens itself.

 

[icarus]

70-300VR is a surprisingly sharp lens. That said, your shooting technique will make alot of difference in apparent sharpness rather than the lens itself.

Agreed... I sold my back breaking 70-200 VRII to get the 70-300VR... my wallet and back both thanked me. The 70-300VR is just as sharp as the 70-200VR - except that you can't use the lens indoors/low lights (i have primes which outperforms the 70-200VR for that job)

 

[baggiolee]

Agreed... I sold my back breaking 70-200 VRII to get the 70-300VR... my wallet and back both thanked me. The 70-300VR is just as sharp as the 70-200VR - except that you can't use the lens indoors/low lights (i have primes which outperforms the 70-200VR for that job)

lol sry i strongly disagree.


70-200 f2.8 vr2 @ 160 f5 100% crop

 

[FrozenRiver]

lol sry i strongly disagree.


70-200 f2.8 vr2 @ 160 f5 100% crop

Stop poisoning me and harming my wallet...

 

[FrozenRiver]

lol sry i strongly disagree.


70-200 f2.8 vr2 @ 160 f5 100% crop

But to be fair, the second picture of 70-300 vr is at 270 wide open, which has no counter part for 70-200 vr2...

Maybe for 70-200 vr2, you can show sth at 200mm and f/2.8 wide open.

 

[baggiolee]

Stop poisoning me and harming my wallet...

only 3k...worth every single penny, buy this and u can throw away all ur lens except prime. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[FrozenRiver]

only 3k...worth every single penny, buy this and u can throw away all ur lens except prime. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

OMGoodness... I said stop...:angry:

 

[baggiolee]

But to be fair, the second picture of 70-300 vr is at 270 wide open, which has no counter part for 70-200 vr2...

Maybe for 70-200 vr2, you can show sth at 200mm and f/2.8 wide open.

sry no f2.8 but 200mm f4. f2.8 shoud be around 70-80% sharpness of f4.

70-200 vr2 @ 200mm f4

 

[FrozenRiver]

sry no f2.8 but 200mm f4.

70-200 vr2 @ 200mm f4

100% crop? Hmmm.....

 

[deltatango]

Thanks for all the quick replies guys. I will be going ahead with my 70-300VR purchase. The 70-200VR looks tempting but way way beyond my budget.

 

[baggiolee]

100% crop? Hmmm.....

yes...100% crop. focal length has little effect on the sharpness as it's all the way sharp from 70 to 200mm.

 

[FrozenRiver]

yes...100% crop. focal length has little effect on the sharpness as it's all the way sharp from 70-200mm.

 

[baggiolee]

Thanks for all the quick replies guys. I will be going ahead with my 70-300VR purchase. The 70-200VR looks tempting but way way beyond my budget.

gd choice, it's at least alot sharper than 55-200 in my opinion. with gd lighting, its IQ will be really good.

70-300mm @ 125mm f5.6. looks really sharp if not 100% crop.

 

[baggiolee]

check digitalrev on ebay. cheap but no local warranty if u don't mind. buy buy buy! :bsmilie:

 

[Wurdelak]

you can try the tamron 70-300 vc usd and compare it with the 70-300 vr nikkor... tried it yesterday, at 300mm wide open (5.6) it's way sharp than my nikkor. price is almost the same.