Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Saturday 28th November 2009, 20:11   #1
jascha777
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 3,151
Nikon 300f4 VR?

Hi there,
I`ve been using the 70-300VR lens and have been pretty
happy with it,but really fancy moving to a prime 300f4 and
1.4 converter.Does anyone have any idea if there is a real
possibility that Nikon will bring out a VR version in the near
future?
Many thanks
Mark
jascha777 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 29th November 2009, 08:22   #2
Duke Leto
Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that simple.
 
Duke Leto's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 8,683
no idea but I'd rather they had brought out a 400/4vr or 400/5.6vr, you could use the 80-400vr at the moment
__________________
have a break have a look at my website http://www.ukwildlife.me.uk
Steve
Duke Leto is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Sunday 29th November 2009, 09:28   #3
Phil Bishop
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Stevenage UK
Posts: 506
Reasonably safe to say that eventually, all of Nikon's longer lenses will have vr.
The 300f4 is a nice lens and you can get decent hand holdable shots with a 1.4 converter (I used to use a Sigma 100-300f4 had a pretty good hit rate). I do prefer though to use a long lens on a tripod-even my 300f2.8 vr.
__________________
Phil Bishop
http://philbishopsbirdingblog.blogspot.com/
Phil Bishop is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 29th November 2009, 11:35   #4
Pitvar
Registered User
 
Pitvar's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North West
Posts: 587
I've really enjoyed my 70-300VR as a good starter lens for birding, I've now got a Sigma 120-300 F2.8 non VR/OS which can give excellent results when used properly - even with 1.4x TCs - giving me 420mm F4 I think. However as I'm as, if not more, interested in record shots, than in spending all day with the Sigma on a tripod, I've just bought a 80-400mm VR.

As a bit of a newbie my thoughts are that its quite a bit heavier than the 70-300VR but it feels rock solid and works well on my D80 [but not my back up D60 which isn't supported for this lens] and whilst I know some users don't like the slower focusing its not been a huge problem for me - early days yet but I have played with the focus limiter which helps. The VR system does make some noise but not nearly as much as the Sigma OS system I've heard in action on one of their 150-500s...

I think for 90% of the time I'll be using 80-400 VR and for some of that time on a monopod and keep looking out for a 500mm F4 within my price range in place of the 120-300.
Pitvar is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2012
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Sunday 29th November 2009, 13:56   #5
Duke Leto
Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that simple.
 
Duke Leto's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 8,683
you could also get the Nikon 200-400vr which is apparently a great lens
__________________
have a break have a look at my website http://www.ukwildlife.me.uk
Steve
Duke Leto is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Wednesday 2nd December 2009, 11:55   #6
Astrokev
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Willington, Beds, UK
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitvar View Post

I think for 90% of the time I'll be using 80-400 VR and for some of that time on a monopod and keep looking out for a 500mm F4 within my price range in place of the 120-300.
You could also consider the Tamron 200-500 to give you the extra reach. AF is a little slower than the Nikon, but in good light the image quallity is excellent - check some of Doc's images on the forum.

kevin
__________________
For images of Birds & Butterflies - Please visit my blog:
http://astrokev.blogspot.co.uk
Astrokev is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 2nd December 2009, 12:08   #7
Helios
Registered User
 
Helios's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hillingdon
Posts: 2,973
Doc's images are amazing, but when I had the big T, I couldn't produce anything like he has. The 300/4 is definitely sharper, and worked far better for me. Never noticed the drop in focal length, as the extra sharpness allows for more heavier cropping, even with a 1.4 teleconverter.

Despite no VR, and slow autofocus with the 1.4 tele on, I still think that the 300/4 is perhaps the best lightweight choice of the Nikon mount lenses.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a VR version to come out. Historically, Nikon is very slow at upgrading lenses, especially at the supertelescopic end.
Helios is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2010
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Thursday 3rd December 2009, 20:11   #8
Astrokev
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Willington, Beds, UK
Posts: 427
Don't get me wrong - I agree the 300/4 is a great lens and I find it's on my camera more often than the Tamron (I have both). It's faster AF is fantastic for BIF shots.

However, I have to strongly disagree with the comment of the extra sharpness of the 300/4 allowing heavier cropping to make up for the loss of focal length. I've carried out controlled tests of both the Nikon and Tamron, using the same subject and camera body, to check this often-quoted belief, and it is simply not true. Period.

I haven't tried this with a 1.4TC so can't comment on this combo. With the TC it may be that the reduction in focal length can be compensated for by cropping.
__________________
For images of Birds & Butterflies - Please visit my blog:
http://astrokev.blogspot.co.uk
Astrokev is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 3rd December 2009, 23:47   #9
Helios
Registered User
 
Helios's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hillingdon
Posts: 2,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrokev View Post
Don't get me wrong - I agree the 300/4 is a great lens and I find it's on my camera more often than the Tamron (I have both). It's faster AF is fantastic for BIF shots.

However, I have to strongly disagree with the comment of the extra sharpness of the 300/4 allowing heavier cropping to make up for the loss of focal length. I've carried out controlled tests of both the Nikon and Tamron, using the same subject and camera body, to check this often-quoted belief, and it is simply not true. Period.

I haven't tried this with a 1.4TC so can't comment on this combo. With the TC it may be that the reduction in focal length can be compensated for by cropping.
No worries. I didn't carry out any tests; this is just my memory from about 2 years ago. Perhaps what I should have said is that I didn't miss the reduction in focal length when I moved to the 300/4 (with the 1.4 tele attached).

I also thought the Tamron's autofocus was about on par with the 300/4 with the 1.4 tele. attached. I certainly had less trouble with it. Again, this is just my memory.
Helios is offline  
Reply With Quote
BF Supporter 2010
Click here to Support BirdForum
Old Friday 4th December 2009, 16:14   #10
Astrokev
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Willington, Beds, UK
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helios View Post
No worries. I didn't carry out any tests; this is just my memory from about 2 years ago. Perhaps what I should have said is that I didn't miss the reduction in focal length when I moved to the 300/4 (with the 1.4 tele attached).

I also thought the Tamron's autofocus was about on par with the 300/4 with the 1.4 tele. attached. I certainly had less trouble with it. Again, this is just my memory.
Hi Helios. Thanks, this is interesting. I am considering getting a TC for the 300 but have heard that it slows down the AF. If you think it's on a par with the Tammy then this gives me something to go by. Cheers.

On the other point, the 300+TC gives a final focal length not too far off the Tammy, so I can understand that it's not too noticeable unless you're comparing them side by side.
__________________
For images of Birds & Butterflies - Please visit my blog:
http://astrokev.blogspot.co.uk
Astrokev is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 4th December 2009, 22:06   #11
jascha777
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: scotland
Posts: 3,151
Many thanks for all the replies.
Mark
jascha777 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon V Nikon 300f4 jascha777 Nikon 22 Saturday 20th June 2009 17:08
300f4-- 1.4 OR 2X converta greg mit Canon 17 Friday 29th May 2009 06:13
300f4 and 2x converter graham catley Canon 21 Saturday 26th August 2006 20:54

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Search the net with ask.com
Help support BirdForum
Ask.com and get

Page generated in 0.14749002 seconds with 20 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:04.