Nikkor 70-300 VR f:/4.5-5.6 Using VR question?

[Not4wood]

I just purchased this 70-300 VR Lens and am looking at the Manual about using VR and also the review here: 70-300mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

Anybody that does have this lens, if your panning is it correct to assume that you only use the VR in Normal and not Active?

Also, from what I understand if your using the Tripod VR is completely Off? How are your results with using this lens and what do you think about it??

[cyclohexane]

if your panning is it correct to assume that you only use the VR in Normal and not Active?

For all VR lenses that have the mode switch, yes. Panning, use VR in Normal. I pretty much never use "Active" on any of my VR lenses.

from what I understand if your using the Tripod VR is completely Off?

Yep. Despite what Nikon and Canon claim about lenses being able to "detect" tripods, better results are achieved with VR off.

[Not4wood]

I have one more question about VR that I had forgotten. I hate to be a pest but I also think this question would help others as well.

Last Summer we were on a Diner Cruise in San Diego Bay and I had taken a shot of the City Scape with great colors from the Eastern Sky as the Sun Set. My problem was that the Ship, the Canon P&S and I were all moving with the water. The shot due to low light levels showed a lot of blur due to movement. Would the VR have helped in this kind of situation as well??

I would assume it would only help the shot but due to the light levels I probably would have set my ISO a lot higher to try and compensate for the loss of the stops due to the VR. Granted I only played with the Lens in the Photo Store, but I didn't see any differance in the level of light when I turned on the VR and when it was off. How do I know when and how much to compensate? Would I be able to see the differance in the View Finder??

Thank you very much for your prompt reply. Have a Karma.

[cyclohexane]

Would the VR have helped in this kind of situation as well??

Active VR will help the motion on your end- camera shake will be eliminated. You'll still have to raise the ISO when the ship's moving forward if the light's low though.

VR stops your motion; it won't stop subject motion.

I didn't see any differance in the level of light when I turned on the VR and when it was off

VR doesn't change light levels. It only removes camera motion.

Would I be able to see the differance in the View Finder??

Yes.

[Not4wood]

OK, thanks.

I always heard that you loose one or two stops when the VR is on. Am I supposed to see this thru the lens or only in the results that I have to be careful for exposures? Because, I dont see anything. During my shoot I was conscious of looking for this, and in my exposures I dont see anything off.

[Nikonfreak]

No, you won't lose any stops. VR has no effect on the aperature, shutter speed or ISO whatsoever.

VR is simply a stabilizing mechanism (think like one of those gyro things spinning) You'll see the image jump in the viewfinder of the camera and then settle almost immediately after pressing AF-On or the shutter halfway down (depending on which way you do it). It helps you with camera shake, especially when you're working with breaking the inverse focal length rule... min shutter speed to avoid motion blur is 1/focal length...

VR doesn't do a thing for you about the lower light situation. Only faster lenses or boosting the ISO on your camera to higher levels can help with low light.

What you (and probably others) run into is that given the variable aperature lenses like the 70-300 you end up at the slower end of the aperature range quickly when approaching 300mm.

In lower light you usually end up needing a faster aperature, not a slower one. Then you run up against needing 1/300 sec at a minimum shutter speed to avoid motion blur.

If you're sitting on a boat that is rocking (compounded problem), you may need to go faster on the shutter speed than the rule of thumb requires to avoid blur so the only option left (can't change the aperature to be more open on a variable aperature lens at the long end) is to pump up the ISO and hope you can attain a reasonable shutter speed + the help of VR to get the image you want with a reasonably good or proper exposure..

With faster glass, say a constant f/2.8 aperature lens, you have a second option... open up the aperature and leave the ISO alone (or a combination of both) and in a range that will still allow for maximum color, dynamic range, and image quality. With faster glass AND the VR ... well, you end up sitting closer to the catbird's seat.

Does this explanation help a little?

Julio

[Not4wood]

I've heard that using VR will cost you two f:/ stops, which I dont see at all.

Otherwise, everything you mentioned looks good and sounds logical to me. Thanks.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Not4wood

I've heard that using VR will cost you two f:/ stops, which I dont see at all.

Otherwise, everything you mentioned looks good and sounds logical to me. Thanks.

Yep, that would be incorrect.

What people say (parroting marketing fluff data) is that VR will allow you to shoot up to two or three stops slower than otherwise possible thanks to the VR system.

Here's the quote from the Nikonusa web site on the 200 f/2

"VR operation offers the equivalent of using a shutter speed 3 stops faster. In addition, active vibration mode selection possible for use in active situations such as a moving boat, car or plane"

This statement is actually very wrong at worst and unintentionally misleading at best. I'm not surprised that folks are confused about what VR is and what it can do. The hype on VR lenses is out of control. Folks are buying into some perceived notion that if a lens doesn't have VR, it's not worth having. That's a load of hogwash.

Shooting at 1/100sec is not the "equivalent" as shooting at 1/800 sec. since VR does nothing about subject motion. If you need 1/800sec to freeze action on the subject, using VR at 1/100 isn't going to cut it.

Julio

Home

[Not4wood]

Yeah, I agree about the Marketing Ploy. I would never generally go in for what the advertisers or advertisements say because of there history in exageration.

For example: Benjamin Moore Paints. The Benjamin Moore Line is good for the purpose and relatively a halfway decent price. But, by far it is not the great paint that the advertisers would have us believe. The other problem is that if you ask any average person on what Paint they want for there Rooms, they always or mostly always answer Benjamin Moore. You want a really Great Paint, look for Pratt & Lambert. Its not cheap by any means, but the quality far surpases any in the Moore Line including there best of the best.

Truthfully, as I get older I am finding not only is it harder to focus but to hand hold the slower shutter speeds. Also, knowing about the longer the Lens the harder it is to hand hold I know I needed that extra push for the VR capabilities.

Thanks.

[Nikonfreak]

Funny you mention paints.

I had a leak on the roof of my garage after Hurricane Wilma and it was basically the flashing separating from the front portion of the roof. We needed to have the house painted and the painter wanted to use some junk paint. I requested Acrylux. That stuff is like thick glue. I painted my previous home with it (1 story...now I'm in a 2 story so I wasn't going up that high) and I have to say that there isn't any water able to get in anywhere and the outside walls feel like they have a rubber coating. That stuff is terrific for exterior walls.

Benjamin Moore my ( | )

Julio