AF-ZOOM 70-300 ED or AFS-VR 70-300mm IF-ED

Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:07 pm

My question is ....Is it worth the extra money to get the VR lens. Does anyone know anything about the 2 lenses? In the market for a better zoom.

Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 199 Location: Worcester, England

Yes !

Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 18 Location: Charlotte, NC

I think it is worth it. I have the 70-300 Vr lens and use it to shoot my kids and sports. The VR feature makes the shooting much easier. I also figured I'm investing in the lens for the long term and wanted to get a lens that will last for the long haul.

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:01 am

mark89unc wrote:

I think it is worth it. I have the 70-300 Vr lens and use it to shoot my kids and sports. The VR feature makes the shooting much easier. I also figured I'm investing in the lens for the long term and wanted to get a lens that will last for the long haul.

How does the VR feature make shooting easier? Can you explain please?

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:46 am

The VR helps stabilize camera shake, so at longer focal lengths or in lower light situations you can get away with a slower shutter speed hand-held than you would otherwise without blur. Most people report at least 2-4 stops beyond what you'd normally get for hand-held.

Sigma147

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:42 pm

sigma147 wrote:

The VR helps stabilize camera shake, so at longer focal lengths or in lower light situations you can get away with a slower shutter speed hand-held than you would otherwise without blur. Most people report at least 2-4 stops beyond what you'd normally get for hand-held.

Sigma147

I guess I have more of a question of the semantics. The above doesn't sound like "easier" shooting to me, but perhaps an offering of more possibilities.

I'm looking to replace my long lens, but am not considering the VR model. Why? Because I use my long lens to shoot sports action outdoors. The VR wouldn't help there because I need a fast shutter anyway to stop motion. Then I'm also on a monopod, so no, or virtually no, "hand-hold" shake. If I use the lens for landscapes, I'd be on a tripod most likely. I could see hand-holding for wildlife perhaps in a dimly lit forest: deer standing still, no fast shutter needed to stop motion. The VR would allow for hand-holding that shot.

Am I off base here? Thanks for the info...

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:53 pm

Nope, sounds like you've got it. The "easier" bit really translates as "allows a wider range of exposure settings without requiring a tripod" so your analysis is on the mark. VR is essentially an electronic tripod.

Sigma147

Joined: 18 Nov 2006 Posts: 288

VR has a mode that is used when the lens itself is moving, such as in following action. I haven't used it personally but my VR lens does have the feature. Obviously, it can't stabilize subject motion but it can stabilize camera motion in a fairly serious manner.

In my experience, I get 2 honest f stops worth of hand holdability with VR. I've managed tack sharp images at 1/60 sec handl held at the 200m focal length. I can assure you I can't do that with a regular lens. Since action sports is not the only thing you shoot, I think it would be a valuable feature for you as well as any other photographer. You can turn VR off when you don't use it. It is there when it is convenient to have it. It adds very little weight to the lens.

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:45 pm

Thanks alot for all the replies and interest in this thread. When I went on Ken Rockwell's site he really pushes the 18-200mm lens and is kind of negative towards the 70-300mm. I think the 18-200 would probably be good when shooting weddings so you didn't have to change lenses except maybe to use a 50mm for portraits, but I also want to be able to shoot wildlife farther away without alot of camera shake or noise. For example the pic I took of the sea otter and the crab could have bee a great picture if I had a better quality lens. Anyhow thank you for the feedback all.

Joined: 18 Nov 2006 Posts: 288

One more bit of advice. I would recommend taking Ken Rockwell with a grain of salt. While he provides some good information on his site, he also provides enough nonsense that it throws his credibility into question. He has said some things on his site that make me stare at the ceiling in disbelief. I'm not speaking about these lenses in particular. I haven't tested any of them. I'm speaking generally about the web site.

My post was just intended to put in a good word for VR which I find to be a useful and valuable feature.

By the way, the reason we buy cameras with interchangeable lenses is so that we can interchange lenses. It is not a bad thing. It is actually a very positive thing.

Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:59 pm

Thank you Hoosier, I am new (8mos) to the digital SLR world
and have alot to learn and I really appreciate your advice as I tend to go to that site alot because he's easy to understand, it's good to know that he is not perfect. Thank you for your advice. I totally agree about the reason for buying a DSLR is so you can change the lenses.

Joined: 25 Aug 2006 Posts: 87 Location: Norfolk UK.

With respect you did not mention the 18-200VR in your original question, this throws a little different light on your question.

I have seen some great reviews & images from the 18-200VR and is a great lens, although i don't have one would in no way knock it.

However going back to your original question, the 70-300 VR beats hands down, The VR is a great benifit for me when using hand held. I love it..

regards

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:34 am

Also, the differences between the 70-300"ED" without USM and VR and the USM 70-300 ED VR don't stop with the USM and VR. The VR lens is just plain out better glass. The previous 70-300 was often debated how it could even have the ED designation, when there was only one ED element in the whole lens, and it was one of the least important elements.

If shooting sports is what you are doing, neither of them is what you want or need. For fast sports action, a slower zoom lens isn't the best answer anyways, so maybe look at a 70-200 f2.8... They have a number of varieties of them, and all of them have been rock solid lenses, and well regarded, just all expensive as well.

Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 224

Having just bought the lens in question (70-300mm VR IF-ED) I would have to say yes it is worth the extra money.

I went to an all breed dog show yesterday as was shooting at ISO 1000 at 1/160 and was able to get decent stop action shots. If I didn't have that lens it would have been difficult at best to get those shots with the lousy lighitng I had to work with.

There is a switch on it that is either set to normal or active. This relates to the VR portion of the lens. In normal mode you are able to shoot panning shots so that the servo's don't think you're getting camera shake and it adjusts only on one axis. Whereas in active the servo's are active in both axis.