to VR or not to VR?

[twistedlogic]

I can get a standard 70-300 Nikon lens for $120 from B&H. But no VR. VR is going to cost double that at $260.

Get the 70-300 VR or Tamron 70-300 VC, not so much for the VR or VC, but the optics and AF speed on these are much faster than the Nikon 55-200 VR or Tamron/Sigma 70-300.

If cost is your number one priority, the Nikon 55-200 non-VR can be found for $100 or the VR version for $150.

 

[Homerboy]

Ok...
with price being a quite significant concern at this point, out of the following lenses, what would be recommended?

[http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/searc...5846+4291220258+4294185277&ntt=300+AF&ntt=300

The search filters are
A) Nikon, Sigma or Tamron
B) 300mm
C) AF

if there are other brands to consider, please let me know.

 

[Homerboy]

Right now, the leading candidate, IMHO is this one:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...5_6_Di_LD.html

The Nikon lenses with built in motor are just too $$$.
I don't need the Sigma APO (just overkill for my level of knowledge and want)

The Tamron seems to get decent reviews (4 out of 5 or so) across the board.

 

[Homerboy]

After talking to a sales rep at B&H, I think the Tamron is a go.
Confirmed 100% working with D5100. Asked him to compare to the Sigma ($30) he said that he felt the Tamron focused faster and was just a more "solid" build. for $30 more I'll sleep better at night.

Comes with 2 caps and a hood.

 

[fralexandr]

the tamron is excellent, it beats both the sigmas in sharpness, but is likely to cause purple fringing in shots (similar amount of PF to the sigma non APO)
the sigma APO has more multicoated elements, which causes it to lose to the tamron in sharpness (barely), but reduces purple fringing

quantaray has rebranded copies of the sigma APO, sigma DL (older variant), and Tamron

you can usually find the above lenses on ebay for ~$80 used in excellent shape

the LDO 58mm filter ones are sigma, 62mm LD is the tamron
the gold trimmed 58mm quantaray is the sigma APO, whereas the green trim is like the sigma DL macro super
i dunno about the autofocus mechanisms though

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw...t=0&_odkw=quantaray+70-300+nikon+af&_osacat=0

 

[radhak]

I don't think you'll go too wrong with Sigma/Tamron vs Nikon. (Particularly if $$ are an issue). And that 'macro' part of the lens could be a great bonus if you learn how to use it.

I don't have insight on how Sigma / Tamron compare, but reading the customer reviews, looks like a much smaller number complained about slow focus / blurry focus in the Sigma, if you want to pay attention to user reviews much.

Also, the Sigma seems heavier (530 vs 435 g), so that could be a negative for it ('heavy') or a positive ('more solid build) : take your pick.

FWIW, I have a Tamron (17-55, 2.8) that I really like despite it being heavy, or a small grating noise while zooming/focusing.

Overall, I think you'll love the new lens whether it's Tamron or Sigma - seeing your subjects pulled in close is exhilarating. You'd even love highly-zoomed-in pictures of objects that are not very far off - the bokeh is really nice. Try it when you get it.

Since you'll be photographing sports, make sure you make the best of daylight. These lenses may not be king for all situations, but you won't complain much when the sun is up. Enjoy!

edit : I have the Quantaray 70-300 that Fralexander mentions, and for the price I paid for it, I wouldn't part with it! But - it will not autofocus with your D5100.

 

[Homerboy]

gah! fralexandr too late.
I pulled the trigger on the Tamron 70-300mm
I thumbed around in reviews and it seemed everyone was happy with the Tamron. I had a Tamrom lens when I had a 35mm film camera and liked it (that was 15+ years ago though)

I ended up ordering from Amazon as well. $199, free 2 day ship (Prime) and Amazon allows you to auto deduct your Discover Cash back bonus, of which I had ~$40, so ~$159 shipped.

 

[deanx0r]

I was looking at the Tokina 100mm f2.8 vs the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR which is twice as expensive. I think the need for VR depends on the type of shots and situation. For sport and macro, it is unneeded, but for shooting handheld videos, it is a welcomed feature.

Check this video to see the difference between VR on and off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLQuXfXJFJ8

 

[blastingcap]

Some of you may recall my "I'm a newbie." thread from a couple months back:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2224536

I ended up purchasing a nikon D5100 w/ kit 18-55mm lens and have thus far loved it.

One of the main uses for this camera will be baseball photos of my son, and baseball season is almost upon us, so I need to pick up a telephoto lens. (I'm leaning towards 300mm at this point).

The problem I have is $$$. I'm a tad strapped right now and would like to do this as economically possible. I can get a standard 70-300 Nikon lens for $120 from B&H. But no VR. VR is going to cost double that at $260.

Is the VR THAT noticeable at the longer lengths? Should I just bit the bullet and spend the $260 and eat PB&J for a month?

Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks

PS: If anyone has a used telephoto lens for sale, I'm buying!

Congrats on the d5100, the finest APS-C camera per dollar you can buy today.

VR, like all image stabilization systems, are useless for moving objects. They are only good for immobile objects or if you can pan exceptionally well.

Therefore VR is not really necessary for sports. You can go ahead and buy a non-VR version, but make sure it says "AF-S" else it will not autofocus on the D5100. (The older, non AF-S lenses use a screw motor that the D5100 doesn't have; you need to upgrade to the D7000 to get a screw motor. Personally I think that screw motors just add extra weight and I don't have any legacy lenses, so I do not care for them.)

The specific lens you talk about for $150 or so, is NOT an AF-S lens.

If you want to save money, consider getting the Tamron 70-300mm VC which is pretty close to the Nikon but cheaper and with better image stabilization, not that you need it for moving objects.

Else step down to the 55-300mm VR or the 55-200mm (either VR or non-VR), which all have AF-S autofocus if I recall correctly.

By the way, in bright sunshine OR for moving objects where you'd hit 1/500th second or faster, turn off VR. VR will actually very slightly blur your photos once you reach 1/500th second or faster exposure time, so if you can get away with simply cranking up ISO instead, do that.

 

[blastingcap]

gah! fralexandr too late.
I pulled the trigger on the Tamron 70-300mm
I thumbed around in reviews and it seemed everyone was happy with the Tamron. I had a Tamrom lens when I had a 35mm film camera and liked it (that was 15+ years ago though)

I ended up ordering from Amazon as well. $199, free 2 day ship (Prime) and Amazon allows you to auto deduct your Discover Cash back bonus, of which I had ~$40, so ~$159 shipped.

Eh, I guess you already made your choice. Anyway I hope it works out for you; some people say its autofocus speed leaves something to be desired, but that's a subjective call. As a bonus, it can take close-up photos (macro photos). It also has a rep for being soft at the long end. So if you want sharper photos at 300mm, try stopping down to f/8, even if that means having to crank ISO up a bit more.

 

[Homerboy]

I was looking at the Tokina 100mm f2.8 vs the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR which is twice as expensive. I think the need for VR depends on the type of shots and situation. For sport and macro, it is unneeded, but for shooting handheld videos, it is a welcomed feature.

Check this video to see the difference between VR on and off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLQuXfXJFJ8

Hmm didn't think of the VR while recording video. While I don't plan on doing A LOT of it at the longer lengths, I'm sure I would do SOME.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Tamron has QA issues. Many have to send off their news lenses before the are sharp. My new 17-55 f/2.8 is at Tamron right now for calibration. Just plan on possibly having to do this.

JR

 

[iGas]

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF can be had for $800 used, but it could be more than you want to spend.

IMHO, you don't need VR when shooting at 1/500s or greater speed for stop action.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF can be had for $800 used, but it could be more than you want to spend.

IMHO, you don't need VR when shooting at 1/500s or greater speed for stop action.

Awesome for the price. Won't focus on the D5100 unless you get the af-s version, which sells for more used than the AF-D version does new.

JR

 

[irse]

More than whether having VR or not (shooting sports with faster shutter speed, no need for VR), I would want the fastest autofocusing lens. You can compensate camera shake with a monopod or increasing shutter speed but you can compensate for an autofocus system that is a tad slow. If that lens has to be returned for whatever reason, I would eat PB&J and get a AF-S lens and be done with it.

 

[GWestphal]

If a tripod won't do the trick for you then and assuming you considered other options available to you to exposure compensate, then get VR. Keep in mind, VR is for handshake not subject movement.