Reading mode: Light Dark

BIG DOUBTS about my 70-300 VR Unit

Go to last post
P

popeye69

Leading Member
Messages
507
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hi,

I'd wish to have some comments about the 70-300 VR at full 300mm zoom.

I really have big doubts about my unit. I bought this lens 6 months ago & did'nt use it a lot , just shot about 50 shots with it and first, only between 70 & 150mm.

Last days, I tried to test some shots at 300mm because I had a little doubt about its sharpness ability at 300mm.

I didnt use a tripod , but, tried many options in full day light of course : 100 asa - to 400 asa . 1/500 to 1/3000. VR & no VR. 5.6 to 8 in aparture. active & no active... Some pictures look OK if I look at the whole image, but once I zoom in, I cant get the focus area sharp, even at a good aperture (F8) .

I directly thought about a bad unit (front or back focusing one) but, tell me if I am wrong, if the lens suffers from back/front focusing, there should be a sharp area in front (or behind) of my focused one , not ?

Thanks for your help. I'll try to put more efficient exemples (tripod shooted) to illustrate my purpose.

best regards, popeye69. (used to primes.)
 
oh... and can you get a right Focus Point/sharpness somewhere esle in your pic or is it soft everywere ?
 
First, I love those dogs (labs ?) . The focus seems to be on the right one , and maybe is sharper just on the grass near it's paws. but again, the sharpness isn't reallly good, same thing happens to me even at 1/2000 , 200 asa , VR on or OFF...
 
my moon shot is at 300mm and pretty sharp like i say some are and some arent
popeye69 said:
Hi,

I'd wish to have some comments about the 70-300 VR at full 300mm zoom.
I really have big doubts about my unit. I bought this lens 6 months
ago & did'nt use it a lot , just shot about 50 shots with it and
first, only between 70 & 150mm.
Last days, I tried to test some shots at 300mm because I had a little
doubt about its sharpness ability at 300mm.

I didnt use a tripod , but, tried many options in full day light of
course : 100 asa - to 400 asa . 1/500 to 1/3000. VR & no VR. 5.6 to 8
in aparture. active & no active... Some pictures look OK if I look
at the whole image, but once I zoom in, I cant get the focus area
sharp, even at a good aperture (F8) .

I directly thought about a bad unit (front or back focusing one) but,
tell me if I am wrong, if the lens suffers from back/front focusing,
there should be a sharp area in front (or behind) of my focused one ,
not ?

Thanks for your help. I'll try to put more efficient exemples (tripod
shooted) to illustrate my purpose.

best regards, popeye69. (used to primes.)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/
 
but the pixels look sharper on my focused area... maybe the lens is like that at 300mm, even at F8...
Can someone describe better how to recognize a FRONT / BACK focus problem ?
 
I have often said around here, typically in passing, that my 70-300VR has over the weeks become an expensive paperweight.

Relatively expensive though it is, I am reminded that the lens is still consumer quality at best and this means compromises. I own strictly consumer quality equipment and am used to the concept, but still, after all the raves it gets, I have felt a little guilty that the 70-300VR didn't wow me more than it does.

I accept softness at the long end in all of my long lenses and I know that if I really wanted a tack sharp capture of that cardinal 20 metres away I need to look at the 80-400VR that costs several times as much. USM is easy to use and it doesn't take much effort for me to study so that I use it intelligently, so long end softness isn't the horrid bugbear for me it is for many here.

I don't dislike the lens but I have to confess I am still waiting for it to impress me as much as I am told around here it should. As it stands, I like the results I can consistently get with third party glass I got at a fraction of the cost. For example, my Sigma 18-200 (the original one,not the newest version) gives me totally acceptable 300mm results at 200mm with good long lens technique and cropping. The inconvenience and fussiness of the much heavier 70-300VR just isn't compensated by its supposedly superior optics.
 
Thanks. I do want to emphasize that I take complete ownership for my opinions and respect that others have a better time with the lens. I am also aware that the long-end IQ I get with that Sigma superzoom would just not be acceptable to more discriminating users who are too busy to fuss around with corrective post processing. But for small to medium size output, I get good enough results for me, and since I am not a pro I am the only one I need to please!
 
Here's an example of D80, ISO 400, 70-300 VR @ ƒ 6.7 300 mm, 1/1500 sec., SB-800, 100% crop, no PP, and detail at pixels 1:1. Do you feel it is soft?





--
Lito
D80 + Mac :)

 
But yes. your image seems to illustrate perfectly the problem of this lens. (I got the same kind of pictures). It seems that the software sharpens the whole image , wich was a bit blurred at the moment of the shot.

Results are weird and give something not really attractive (when you zoom in 1X or 2X, but it's already visible as is).

Global quality reminds me some jpeg artifacts and oversharpend effect on something blurred.

(as if the software tries to join to unfocuses anchors by underlining the pixels.)

I am more used to shoot with Primes, and got some for a half / quart of the price of this lens. (less heavy also). I like the design and the Fast AF , but did some tests last Hour (with focusing prism installed, on a tripod and at F8), the lens doesnt find exactly the right focus very often (at 0.2mm maybe, but that makes the difference also).
 
alex41 said:
Hi,
You can try to focus using one focus point, on a tripod, no VR, 300
mm at f/8. The sharpness should be acceptable even at the pixel level
otherwise the lens is no good.

I wrote some of my opinions on this lens below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yazici/2392724907/in/set-72157604416324835/
Click to expand...
Interesting review, I own this lens as well and my experiences resemble very much yours. I tried it out handheld and on a tripod and have very acceptable image quality at 300mm. As you mention from f8 to f11 I see the IQ improve
 
yea they are not to bad had there electric fence collors on so not to bad of dogs pretty well behaved
genece said:
tloon said:
look at my flicker at the 2 black dogs and tell me what you think
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/
Click to expand...
--
Gene from Western Pa

http://imageevent.com/grc6
http://grc225.zenfolio.com/
FZ10....20 and 30 and FZ18

D50 ....D80 - 18 to 200VR- 50mm 1.8 - 80 to 400 OS



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tloon1/
 
Popeye69,

I don’t know what primes you are used to. For a $500 consumer zoom the 70-300 VR is excellent. Litto’s example shows the lens at it’s limit near wide open and at the long end. His photo shows a lack of resolution possibly due to camera movement even at 1/1500 as even the grass lacks crisp edges. If you want to beat this quality, you are going to have to spend a lot of money for pro zooms or primes. On the Nikon side, the choices are:
300 f 4 - $1,100
80-400 VR - $1,400
200-400 VR - $5,100
300 VR - $4,500

How big do you print? If size is limited to 8x10 and you are not cropping more than 2x, then the only difference that will be noticeable in a the prints after proper PP will be the quality of the OOF backgrounds.

Morris

--



http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~morris/POD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top