Mmmm Nikkor 70-300mm VR (O.T. Test shots non reef)

[spankey]

I just got a new toy for my Nikon D40 today. A nice Nikor 70-300mm VR lense... This lense is insane. I snapped these test photos of this bird from about 35 feet away at full zoom and free handed. The VR makes the world of difference as you can tell....

Watcha think?

The above was the bird coming in for a landing so to say. The next photo I snapped as it landed...

Turned and took off again,

 

[fraggin]

crisp shots. last one is cool with the shadow.

 

[spankey]

THanks.

 

[edwing206]

Awesome photos. Have pics with VR turned off? I wanna see the difference. thanks

 

[spankey]

I did but deleted them. Major blur at full zoom. This lense looks like a grenade launcher on the camera. At full zoom with the hood on the lense it is dang near 10" extended You need the VR to shoot with a zoom lense of this size....

If I remember to snap some photos with the VR off I will post them.

 

[king4345]

WOW!!! That is super impressive. Makes my Fuji look like something Fisher Price sold....

 

[raddogz]

Those pictures are so SWEET!

Look forward to the upcoming ones.

 

[fraggin]

i think you need to post some of your black/color photos you played a round with, i thought they where really cool too.

 

[edwing206]

Cool, I'll be looking for those pics.

 

[maroun.c]

Spankey,
the true test of a VR lens is not outside under bright sun.
Wait till you try it in darker situations and you will be amazed then.
I have the same lens as well as the 18-200 VR and in addition to the VR capabilities of this lens I'm amazed with the sharpness of a cheap (er) zoom. the 55-200 which is really the cheapest VR lens out is getting good reviews too but everyone seems to be really happy with the 70-300. It's a shame that Nikon TC is not compatible with it.

 

[jet_jer]

Here is my shots from the weekend at the Buffalo Zoo - taken with the same 70-300mm VR lens on my D50:

None of them have any post processing as I'm not very good at that yet still learning what I need to.

Jer

 

[edwing206]

Those were all hand held!?!?!?
They are amazingly crisp, not to mention nice!!

 

[Ebn]

Try some shots where the shutter speed is less than 1/focal distance (e.g. at 300mm, get the shutter speed below 1/300) to see VR at work.

You can really see VR kick in when you get a lower shutter speed. For example, here's VR in action (unprocessed; just conversion from RAW to JPEG).

200mm, shutter speed of 1/80

Here's the 100% crop from the shot

 

[jet_jer]

Yeah all handheld and most over the 200mm mark. I have yet to try this lens inside but I have used my 24-120mm VR lens inside and your right the ability to step the shutter down for more light is awsome. I however can't hold a camera still for my life - I always had problems taking nice zoo pics due to me shaking and at 200mm-300mm it shows up big time. The VR function is great and I'll make sure most of my lens have them as I don't carry around a tripod at all - in fact I don't even own one.

More pics from the zoo can be seen here:
http://picasaweb.google.com/jeremiah.randolph/BuffaloZoo

jer

 

[bwest]

I'm guessing VR is just another term for IS or Image Stabilization. In this case, I would really like to see what it can do in the lower lighting situations. I personally don't have any lenses for my digital slr that have stabilization.

I use a canon digital rebel xt and have both a 300mm f4/L and a 70-200 f4/L, along with a 1.4x converter. In my experience, as long as I have the shutter speed above 1/80 sec, there is no need for image stabilization, as the shutter speed is fast enough to negate hand shake.

The pictures look good, but this is just a quick thought before going out and spending a lot more on an IS or VR version of a lens, when it really isn't necessary.

 

[jeffbrig]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9893251#post9893251 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jet_jer
70-300mm VR lens on my D50:

Nice sharp pictures overall, but I have a question. The bokeh doesn't look very smooth in this picture. Look at the out of focus blades of grass in the bottom of the frame, the blur has a very rough appearance. Is this a resizing artifact, or a lens characteristic?

 

[MCary]

Probably just stopped down too far. In bright light the auto mode will do that. Was it auto mode?

 

[jet_jer]

Well not full auto but on the one where I can change things but it has control most of the time - I'm still learning the ins and outs of what to change when.

Jer

 

[MCary]

Don't mean to hijack, sorry Spanky, but maybe you both can benefit.

To get a nice bokeh (blurred background), you need to open up your aperature. See if you can get the effect from the second f-stop. The best quality of the lens usually starts there. For instance, if you had f 5.6 at 300mm, the best quality starts at f8 if that's your next stop. So try f8 and let the camera set the shutter speed and see if that works for you. If the background still has noticable difinition and you want a creamier bokeh, you may have to go up to 5.6.

Mike

 

[jet_jer]

Thanks for the info any little bit helps! I plan to go back to the zoo next week so I'll give this a try asap

Jer