[thornlv]

Apart from the added VR options (tripod) and focus memory buttons, is there any optical difference between the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR and VRII lenses. According to the Nikon site, the optical design and coatings are the same.

[Jaff]

Haven't you sort of answered your own question? If Nikon say it I'd be inclined to believe it.

[thornlv]

you know, Mondays are always mostly my dumb days, anyway - dug a little and its one stop, VR1 3 stop shutter speed, VR2 4 stops.

for me, not much in it then. just that I have seen some nice priced VR1's

[BillN]

Slightly off topic Vic, but I have just read that a 300mm lens gives a magnification of 36 times and a 600mm gives a magnification of 144 times versus a normal 50mm lens

Is this correct ............ ??

[Dave Williams]

Originally Posted by thornlv

Apart from the added VR options (tripod) and focus memory buttons, is there any optical difference between the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR and VRII lenses. According to the Nikon site, the optical design and coatings are the same.

Can't tell you anything other than the VR1 is a cracking lens and the only one I have to keep given a choice. I have however bought a 70-200mm VR11 and chose it over the VR1 ( it was a few hundred £'s more) as I was advised it is better with TC's than the VR1 version. VR1 apparently has better bokeh. Might be the same on the 300mm.

[thornlv]

BillN - to be honest, I have no idea - could you point to where you saw this.

[seaspirit]

Originally Posted by BillN

Slightly off topic Vic, but I have just read that a 300mm lens gives a magnification of 36 times and a 600mm gives a magnification of 144 times versus a normal 50mm lens

Is this correct ............ ??

No, not even close!

In magnification terms a 300mm lens is closer to 6x (300/50) and a 600mm to 12x.
Depending on the camera's crop factor (sensor size) you will get a bit more (like 9x and 18x on a Nikon DX dSLR body), but still nowhere near of the numbers you quoted. To get there you would need a small sensor (i.e. crop factor of up to 12) and I doubt that there is a camera commercially available with a sensor that small and able to take a 300mm or 600mm lens.

Ulli

[BillN]

Originally Posted by thornlv

BillN - to be honest, I have no idea - could you point to where you saw this.

Vic

LL

here

[BillN]

Originally Posted by seaspirit

No, not even close!

In magnification terms a 300mm lens is closer to 6x (300/50) and a 600mm to 12x.
Depending on the camera's crop factor (sensor size) you will get a bit more (like 9x and 18x on a Nikon DX dSLR body), but still nowhere near of the numbers you quoted. To get there you would need a small sensor (i.e. crop factor of up to 12) and I doubt that there is a camera commercially available with a sensor that small and able to take a 300mm or 600mm lens.

Ulli

Ulli

this was in FF terms not DX

I got the 12 and the 6 - maybe I misunderstood the article which I thought indicated that in FF terms it was 6 x 6 = 36 and 12 x 12 = 144 - versus a 50mm lens

[seaspirit]

Originally Posted by BillN

Ulli

this was in FF terms not DX

I got the 12 and the 6 - maybe I misunderstood the article which I thought indicated that in FF terms it was 6 x 6 = 36 and 12 x 12 = 144 - versus a 50mm lens

Well,

just read the section in the article you referred to above, and ....

I can't see any logic in the argumentation the fellow is trying to get across, and frankly I think he is dead wrong with his math.

Ulli

[thornlv]

I sort of understand it, perhaps a seasoned scope user would as well, we have to separate 'focal length' and magnification. The maths for the 2 are quite different.

[seaspirit]

Originally Posted by thornlv

I sort of understand it, perhaps a seasoned scope user would as well, we have to separate 'focal length' and magnification. The maths for the 2 are quite different.

The part on how to calculate magnification from focal length for scope/eyepiece combination is pretty much the same as in the camera world (50mm is assumed to be equivalent to our eye and therefore used) and done by dividing the focal length of one by the focal length of the other.

But why put the magnification calculated to the square? Of course is the surface area covered with 2x magnification 4 (2x2) times smaller than the surface area covered with 1x, but in each axis (X and Y) a subject is it still only twice as big. That's where I am missing the logic as there is no obvious practical implication to this kind of number trickery. If at all it makes it psychologically easier to justify spending a lot of money for a seemingly bigger gain .....

Ulli

[BillN]

the reason I mentioned it is that I saw from another post that Vic is moving from a 600mm or 500mm to a 300mm

[RJM]

Originally Posted by seaspirit

The part on how to calculate magnification from focal length for scope/eyepiece combination is pretty much the same as in the camera world (50mm is assumed to be equivalent to our eye and therefore used) and done by dividing the focal length of one by the focal length of the other.

But why put the magnification calculated to the square? Of course is the surface area covered with 2x magnification 4 (2x2) times smaller than the surface area covered with 1x, but in each axis (X and Y) a subject is it still only twice as big. That's where I am missing the logic as there is no obvious practical implication to this kind of number trickery. If at all it makes it psychologically easier to justify spending a lot of money for a seemingly bigger gain .....

Ulli

The author is confusing the relevant meanings of magnification. Angular magnification (~12x with a 600mm lens) and linear magnification (144x with a 600mm lens) can be respectively characterized as "virtual" and "real."

With a 600mm lens, when you look thru the viewfinder you see a virtual 12x image as if you were standing 12x closer than with a 50mm lens. But if you took a ruler and measured objects in two identically sized prints on a wall, one taken with a 50mm lens and the other at 600mm, the objects in the 600mm print would be 144x larger than their measured size on the 50mm print.

When looking thru any optic that projects a virtual image to our eyes we speak of angular magnification. When comparing the objects true physical dimensions, we speak of linear magnification.

[Phil Bishop]

Originally Posted by seaspirit

But why put the magnification calculated to the square?

Ulli

There was a time in astronomy where it was common practice to quote magnification in terms of area, but at the same time many were using linear magnification. This led to a lot of confusion and argument particularly towards the end of the 18thC when opticians were starting to make significant improvements in telescopes allowing greater magnifications to be employed, so gradually the linear version with it's more manageable numbers started to gain favour.
The use of area magnification in telescopes and binoculars is still seen occasionally in those newspaper ads for cheap optics where the very high mangifications is seen as a major selling point.

Still it can be a valid point in digital photography in that if you double the focal length you put 4x the number of pixels on your subject and so on.

[asiostygius]

Originally Posted by thornlv

you know, Mondays are always mostly my dumb days, anyway - dug a little and its one stop, VR1 3 stop shutter speed, VR2 4 stops.

for me, not much in it then. just that I have seen some nice priced VR1's

This seems to be the true. Optical formula is the same and almost all specs are identical, except VRII.
see here the 2 300 VR specs:
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#300

My 300 VRI was bought just some months after the launching of the VRII, at the time USD 800.00 cheaper! I didnt regret.