Why so few VR lenses?

jerryfenner · #8 11-18-2005, 04:45 PM

Hey Jim

Thanks for your post. Until a sensible approach to my wallet took over, I was all set to trade in my 400mm f2.8 for the 300mmVR, largely because of the weight difference and ease of use in the field - you've made me think twice!

Jez

Richard_Gregory · #9 11-18-2005, 05:25 PM

Monopods & VR work well. I've not lost anything in the split-second it takes the VR to spin up, but then I've generally got the shutter 1/2 down when composing shots anyway. I shoot mostly birds and other un-predictable animals.

That said, DON'T sell that 400mm for a VR 300mm.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Seriously. That's great glass. You could set your camera on auto ISO and set an exposure like 1/400th @ f8 too.

Just some ideas.

As for hand-holding lenses, that works okay but they all get heavy after a while. Invest in a good tripod head, or try a monopod first.

Roger_Martin · #10 11-19-2005, 11:16 AM

I think it has to do with the recent upgrade of those lense to AFS and lighter casing + Nikon's VR is in a current state of rapid improvement. A high percentage of their new lenses are VR.
You might consider using the 200-400 AFS-VR. It works extremely well with activated on a tripod and can be used with the newest Nikkor converters. Mounted on a D2X with crop mode on + converter will give you a huge range. Some Birders actually hand hold this combo. I use a tripod with full Wimberly Head to take HillClimb pictures from 1,000 feet away.

jerryfenner · #11 11-19-2005, 12:51 PM

Rest easy guys - I'm not letting that 400mm go; I had already decided that as it is such a good lens - you just have to know when and where you're going to use it. When I'm maling enough, then I'll get the 300mm VR in addition!

Cheers

Jez

Richard_Gregory · #12 11-19-2005, 08:14 PM

phew.... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I find the 300mm VR with a 1.7x TC is a killer sharp lens @ f8 and okay otherwise. I also have (yes, I'm spoiled) a 200-400mm VR and I believe it's just as good with a 1.4x TC even earlier than f8..

jerryfenner · #13 11-19-2005, 08:47 PM

"maling" - correction - this should of course read "making"

GuyWalder · #14 11-20-2005, 07:03 AM

Pete,
what focal lengths do you think are missing VR?
On a D2X the 300f2.8VR will give you an FOV equivalent of 450mm or 600mm (HSC mode) at f2.8 or the 200-400 will go to 800mmf4 on HSC mode, with VR. I dont see those lenses in the Canon catalogue..... sure you can use a 20D and Canons long lenses, but is that a better answer? It would certainly be a more expensive answer...
As for the economics, I dont think Nikon need hurry VR on the longer lenses, they are a pig to use other than with a good tripod, and for the majority of users I guess that the existing 300f2.8 and 200-400F4 lenses combine with the FOV crop to suit most people. While considering economics, its interesting to see that Nikon still make the MF 400f2.8 and MF 600f5.6 and MF 800f5.6 as well as a wide range of shorter focal lengths which are easily available over the counter in Japan, so dont go getting sucked in by all the new gear hype on the www!
Guy