Nikon 70-300mm VR lens - Would you be happy with these results?

Carl16033 · Oct 24, 2013

I need a little guidance. I bought a second lens: a Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED. I read all the reviews about distortion and chromatic aberration in this lens and that it could be corrected in software. Due to my lack of experience, I'm not sure if what I am seeing is normal or if I got a lemon. My images on screen (to me) seem to be ever-so-slightly out of focus with this lens. There is also a lot of Chromatic aberration. I'm not sure if it is excessive for this lens or normal. Pictures taken with this lens just seem (to me) to be not as sharp as they could be. Maybe thats the way it is with this lens but still not bad, or maybe I have a focus issue.

I am not sure if the lens is bad, or if my opinion is being jaded by what I "think" I see. I need a second opinion. I can still take the lens back for a refund if necessary. Attached are some test shots. These were taken with a Nikon D3200, so anything bad at the edges of the pics I assume will be worse on a full-frame camera. I'd appreciate your comments.

The first photo is the center portion of EIA Resolution chart 1956 that I downloaded in PDF form from the internet and printed on semi-gloss presentation paper using HP Laserjet LJ2200 at 600 dpi, which is why you see a dot or crosshatch pattern in the grey areas and jagged edges in the text. I took it from about 8 feet fully zoomed to 300 mm, wide open at f5.6, ISO 200, tripod mounted with VR turned off. Shot RAW and converted to JPG for upload.

The second picture is from the same distance, zoomed out to 70mm at wide open f4.5.

Bottom line, would you be happy with these results and keep the lens.

Lastly... one taken at 300mm f11

Stacey_K · Oct 28, 2013

Carl16033 said:
But, it's probably an unjustified fear.

I can understand your concern but it's really not an issue. Like you said, a reputable retailer should have no problem with a return if you aren't happy. Even better, if there is a local store you can check it out before purchase.

Carl16033 · Oct 28, 2013

There is an authorized dealer near here. I called them today. They are out of Nikon mounts, but should have them later this week. I forgot to ask about returns, but I'll make sure to do so before purchasing.

Holmes375 · Oct 28, 2013

I own both the 70-300 VR and Tamron 70-300 VC. Like 'em both - they certainly represent the epitome of bang-for-the-buck tele-zooms.

The results you realised from the Nikkor at 70mm tell me that you probably do indeed have a substandard sample of the lens or its calibration is not friendly with the calibration of your camera body. The 70-300 VR may soften at 300mm but its very sharp at 70mm even wide open.

I like the Nikon for active subjects as the VR kicks in quicker and the Nikon stabilization doesn't conflict with panning shots.

For static subjects I prefer the Tamron with its incredible multi-axis stabilization and nicer contrast. The Tamron's VC is very useful when I'm shooting from a kayak or a canoe.

I'm not a pixel peeper thus have not noticed any real world differences in sharpness between the two lenses. When used wide open the Tamron does have better contrast but they equalize as they're stopped down a bit.

I would recommend a couple of excellent articles by Roger Cicala that might help you now and in the future regarding DSLR lenses, camera bodies, and the inherent variables pertinent to manufacturing tolerances:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333489584/variation-facts-and-fallacies

Hope this helps and good luck to you.

Carl16033 · Oct 28, 2013

Holmes375 said:
I own both the 70-300 VR and Tamron 70-300 VC. Like 'em both - they certainly represent the epitome of bang-for-the-buck tele-zooms.

The results you realised from the Nikkor at 70mm tell me that you probably do indeed have a substandard sample of the lens or its calibration is not friendly with the calibration of your camera body. The 70-300 VR may soften at 300mm but its very sharp at 70mm even wide open.

I like the Nikon for active subjects as the VR kicks in quicker and the Nikon stabilization doesn't conflict with panning shots.

For static subjects I prefer the Tamron with its incredible multi-axis stabilization and nicer contrast. The Tamron's VC is very useful when I'm shooting from a kayak or a canoe.

I'm not a pixel peeper thus have not noticed any real world differences in sharpness between the two lenses. When used wide open the Tamron does have better contrast but they equalize as they're stopped down a bit.

I would recommend a couple of excellent articles by Roger Cicala that might help you now and in the future regarding DSLR lenses, camera bodies, and the inherent variables pertinent to manufacturing tolerances:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/10/05/lenscameravariation

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333489584/variation-facts-and-fallacies

Hope this helps and good luck to you.

frenchy01 · Nov 1, 2013

Hi Reilly,

Just for information: I'm not exactly new here, joined DPR in 2004 (see my profile) many years before your profile was created (2010). I just do not spend all my time on the forums and try to answer only when I have a positive contribution to the questions/debates. I am with Nikon since more than 20years (F801-F100-D70-D200-D300-D800&D5200 + 16-35mm f/4 24-70mm f/2.8 70-200mm f/2.8 II 300mm f/2.8) and consider myself as an advanced amateur knowing his material.

I kind of agree with you on the fact that some just come in to say "xxx is better than yyy which is crap", but I must say that in 10years of forum the amount of brand aficionados also increased and they have no positive contribution to the forum, only bashing some having real problems with their camera's or lenses. I had the infamous "left AF point issue on my D800" and some (no names here but he will recognize himself) just come in to say "all is well with D800, it's 95% user error, your target is not good..." despite the fact that the problem was identified by more skilled persons than themselves (Thom Hogan and others). Same with the D600 dust/oil issue.

So again, my Nikon 70-300mm VR is an excellent lens up to 220-240mm (it even competes with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 I have tried a few years ago), but the 300mm side just does not have the sharpness it has at lower focal length. SLR gear says:

"Sharpness
From 70 to about 135mm, this lens is sharp, sharp, sharp, even when shot wide open. It softens a bit at 200mm, and becomes progressively more so as you proceed to 300mm. It's never awful though, and it's a good deal more than passable at 300mm and f/8."

which is what I am seeing. Figures on Photozone also show the tendency.

Regards,

Frenchie

Carl16033 · Nov 1, 2013

frenchy01 said:
Hi Reilly,

Just for information: I'm not exactly new here, joined DPR in 2004 (see my profile) many years before your profile was created (2010). I just do not spend all my time on the forums and try to answer only when I have a positive contribution to the questions/debates. I am with Nikon since more than 20years (F801-F100-D70-D200-D300-D800&D5200 + 16-35mm f/4 24-70mm f/2.8 70-200mm f/2.8 II 300mm f/2.8) and consider myself as an advanced amateur knowing his material.

I kind of agree with you on the fact that some just come in to say "xxx is better than yyy which is crap", but I must say that in 10years of forum the amount of brand aficionados also increased and they have no positive contribution to the forum, only bashing some having real problems with their camera's or lenses. I had the infamous "left AF point issue on my D800" and some (no names here but he will recognize himself) just come in to say "all is well with D800, it's 95% user error, your target is not good..." despite the fact that the problem was identified by more skilled persons than themselves (Thom Hogan and others). Same with the D600 dust/oil issue.

So again, my Nikon 70-300mm VR is an excellent lens up to 220-240mm (it even competes with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 I have tried a few years ago), but the 300mm side just does not have the sharpness it has at lower focal length. SLR gear says:

"Sharpness
From 70 to about 135mm, this lens is sharp, sharp, sharp, even when shot wide open. It softens a bit at 200mm, and becomes progressively more so as you proceed to 300mm. It's never awful though, and it's a good deal more than passable at 300mm and f/8."

which is what I am seeing. Figures on Photozone also show the tendency.

Regards,

Frenchie

I ended up taking the lens back. I just wasn't pleased with the results, both in 8x10 prints and when viewing on my monitor. I can't say that the lens produced "horrible" results. They just weren't that great. I bought the lens mostly for the 300mm end of things, then for pseudo macro stuff. I know its not a macro lens and strictly speaking, I'm not doing macro work, but I thought it might do the job until I could afford a real macro lens.

Probably the best way to summarize the performance of this lens for me is that it gives $100 performance, with a $500 price tag. Criticize me for that assessment if you want, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Holmes375 · Nov 1, 2013

frenchy01 said:
Hi Reilly,

Just for information: I'm not exactly new here, joined DPR in 2004 (see my profile) many years before your profile was created (2010). I just do not spend all my time on the forums and try to answer only when I have a positive contribution to the questions/debates. I am with Nikon since more than 20years (F801-F100-D70-D200-D300-D800&D5200 + 16-35mm f/4 24-70mm f/2.8 70-200mm f/2.8 II 300mm f/2.8) and consider myself as an advanced amateur knowing his material.

I kind of agree with you on the fact that some just come in to say "xxx is better than yyy which is crap", but I must say that in 10years of forum the amount of brand aficionados also increased and they have no positive contribution to the forum, only bashing some having real problems with their camera's or lenses. I had the infamous "left AF point issue on my D800" and some (no names here but he will recognize himself) just come in to say "all is well with D800, it's 95% user error, your target is not good..." despite the fact that the problem was identified by more skilled persons than themselves (Thom Hogan and others). Same with the D600 dust/oil issue.

So again, my Nikon 70-300mm VR is an excellent lens up to 220-240mm (it even competes with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 I have tried a few years ago), but the 300mm side just does not have the sharpness it has at lower focal length. SLR gear says:

"Sharpness
From 70 to about 135mm, this lens is sharp, sharp, sharp, even when shot wide open. It softens a bit at 200mm, and becomes progressively more so as you proceed to 300mm. It's never awful though, and it's a good deal more than passable at 300mm and f/8."

which is what I am seeing. Figures on Photozone also show the tendency.

Regards,

Frenchie

I would have to concur with your experience and the finding of both test sites referred to.

I would also have to concur with SLR Gear and Photozone regarding their test results of the Tamron version of the lens.

paulski66 · Nov 1, 2013

Carl16033 said:
Probably the best way to summarize the performance of this lens for me is that it gives $100 performance, with a $500 price tag. Criticize me for that assessment if you want, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I think that's a terrible assessment with little grounding in reality.

I mean, sure, if you're going to use it as a macro lens, then yes, it will under-perform. By all means, return it, and stick the manufacturer with the cost of your idiotic decision. But that lens is widely considered one of the true bargains in the Nikon FF/Telephoto line-up, and your assessment does not do it justice.

frenchy01 · Nov 1, 2013

Carl, no critique on your decision. I should have stated that my main experience with this lens is on a 12MP D300, I guess that a 24MP D3200 raises the bar when it comes to required quality of the glass. Since I now have a D800 and D5200 I did not shoot a lot with this lens, but I noticed that my 16-85mm VR on the D5200 is also having a hard time. Those high MPix camera's simply want the best lenses (my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is a gem on the D5200).

Frenchie

frenchy01 · Nov 1, 2013

Oh just one more thing: I am (as others) surprised by the amount of chromatic aberration visible in your pictures. Which software did you use to convert the raw's?

Just to illustrate the 70-300mm performance on my D200 (back 6 years), at 165mm:

Agusta helicopter at Axalp

and the crop:

100% crop of previous image

Holmes375 · Nov 1, 2013

Very nice shot there. Loved the ol' D200 files

The D7100 is rather hard on the consumer glass... and my often haphazard technique but I'm getting along satisfactorily with the 70-300 VR on it as a nice natural world walkabout lens.

--
Holmes

http://holmes.zenfolio.com/

Carl16033 · Nov 1, 2013

paulski66 said:
Carl16033 said:

Probably the best way to summarize the performance of this lens for me is that it gives $100 performance, with a $500 price tag. Criticize me for that assessment if you want, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Click to expand...

I think that's a terrible assessment with little grounding in reality.

I mean, sure, if you're going to use it as a macro lens, then yes, it will under-perform. By all means, return it, and stick the manufacturer with the cost of your idiotic decision. But that lens is widely considered one of the true bargains in the Nikon FF/Telephoto line-up, and your assessment does not do it justice.

Wow. I'm happy that you are happy with the lens. Use it. Love it. Bask in its glory. My assessment is different. But an "idiotic decision"? Seriously. Get a grip on reality. You act like I just kicked your dog. It'll be OK. Really. It will.

My experience with interpreting digital-era equipment reviews is limited. I grew up on film. All the reviews I read indicated that the lens was somewhat or slightly soft at 300mm and that CA was "moderate". I didn't see anything that threw up a red flag to say "don't buy". Now that I've owned the lens, I know what those terms mean and I'll steer clear of equipment with similar ratings, regardless of brand, zoom range, prime, macro, or whatever......

Perhaps the $100 lens comparison was a bit harsh, but my 18-5mm kit lens, which costs about $100 (depending on whether it's new/used) does a far superior job at overall image quality than the 70-300.

I owned a Fuji Finepix S-series step-up camera (no detachable lens) purchased a few years ago at Walmart. It was around $150 to $200. Sorry, I don't recall the exact model or price. I pulled up some of the pictures I took with it. I saw CA and fuzzy image quality from those pictures that were similar to the 70-300. For the price of the camera, I lived with the results. But for $500 for just the lens....unacceptable.

Stacey_K · Nov 1, 2013

Leonard Shepherd said:
Leonard Shepherd said:

Shotcents wrote

LOL! Time after time we see sharp shots from the 70-300vr and 99% of the time they are CURIOUSLY shot below 300mm!

It's getting to be a sad joke at this point. The Nikon is simply not very sharp at 300mm.

Click to expand...

Nikon's MTF show at 300 mm wide open the 10 lpm 70-300 VR score

Blah blah blah, I'm sure Nikon isn't going to say "This lens is pretty soft past 240mm".

Leonard Shepherd said:
Just to wind you up below is a greater than 1:1 magnification taken hand held with the 70-300VR and Nikon 6 T.

Shot at f18 at 145mm. What exactly does this have to do with performance at 300 wide open?

Leonard Shepherd said:
And sorry - your leaf shot is not sharp by my standards viewed on a Retina display which has more than twice the resolution of most other monitors.

Now you find a place to throw in some monitor elitism

Leonard Shepherd said:

--
Stacey

Carl16033 · Nov 1, 2013

One of the things that I've seen in multiple articles mirrors what you just said. Basically, higher Mega pixel cameras want better glass. Any flaws are magnified. I'll end up with something that I'm happy with. I don't need "perfect". I just need "better". It's all been a learning experience.

Carl16033 · Nov 1, 2013

frenchy01 said:
Oh just one more thing: I am (as others) surprised by the amount of chromatic aberration visible in your pictures. Which software did you use to convert the raw's?

Lightroom 4 (4.4, I think). I don't have the computer with me to check the exact version number but I know it's 4.

Shotcents · Nov 1, 2013

Stacey_K said:
Leonard Shepherd said:

Stacey_K said:

Shotcents wrote

LOL! Time after time we see sharp shots from the 70-300vr and 99% of the time they are CURIOUSLY shot below 300mm!

It's getting to be a sad joke at this point. The Nikon is simply not very sharp at 300mm.

Click to expand...

Nikon's MTF show at 300 mm wide open the 10 lpm 70-300 VR score

Click to expand...

Blah blah blah, I'm sure Nikon isn't going to say "This lens is pretty soft past 240mm".

Stacey_K said:

Just to wind you up below is a greater than 1:1 magnification taken hand held with the 70-300VR and Nikon 6 T.

Click to expand...

Shot at f18 at 145mm. What exactly does this have to do with performance at 300 wide open?

Stacey_K said:

And sorry - your leaf shot is not sharp by my standards viewed on a Retina display which has more than twice the resolution of most other monitors.

Click to expand...

Now you find a place to throw in some monitor elitism

Stacey_K said:

Click to expand...

--
Stacey

Stacey, I posted the tomato plant shot...

That's 300mm wide open handheld. He has NOTHING to match it from the Nikon lens. Nor does anyone else, at least so far.

If the Nikon was sharp at 300mm we'd SEE it. Honest owners have admitted the facts, while fanboys are talking about websites and MTF's that don't bear out in actual use.

Stick a fork in those guys.

Robert

Leonard Shepherd · Nov 3, 2013

Tool these at 300mm while waiting for a storm to blow through this morning

70-300 at 300 1

70-300 at 300 2

--- Leonard Shepherd
Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge as to how to get the best out of modern and often complex camera equipment.

Shotcents · Nov 3, 2013

Leonard Shepherd said:
Tool these at 300mm while waiting for a storm to blow through this morning

70-300 at 300 1

70-300 at 300 2

--- Leonard Shepherd
Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge as to how to get the best out of modern and often complex camera equipment.

Uhhhhhhhhh...that's at F9!!!!! My shots at 300, where you can see the tiny hairs on the tomato plant and DUST was at 5.6 and at a slower shutter.

Sorry, but you're only making my case for me again and again.

Robert

Leonard Shepherd · Nov 3, 2013

Shotcents said:
Leonard Shepherd said:

Tool these at 300mm while waiting for a storm to blow through this morning

70-300 at 300 1

Click to expand...

Uhhhhhhhhh...that's at F9!!!!! My shots at 300, where you can see the tiny hairs on the tomato plant and DUST was at 5.6 and at a slower shutter speed

You did not say anything about not taking a reasonable pleasing picture

IMO mine needed smaller than f5.6 to get the background to look as I wanted. Overall I think this is a better photo than the tomato though I agree one stalk centre left would be better removed.

I am not sure why you think shutter speed has anything to do with lens sharpness - providing you take steps to control camera speed

If I post another shot at a slower shutter speed and at f5.6 will you reject it if the focus distance differs from the tomato by an inch?

The broad topic is the untrue suggestion the 70-300 at 300 cannot take a sharp image at 300 mm. This one is not too bad

For those interested in how it was done there was directional sunlight, a rain covered window behind, and an outdoor background in shadow. The raindrops show over the reflections, but are obscured by the artificial flowers in front of the glass.

--
Leonard Shepherd
Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge as to how to get the best out of modern and often complex camera equipment.

Stacey_K · Nov 3, 2013

Carl16033 said:
paulski66 said:

Carl16033 said:

Probably the best way to summarize the performance of this lens for me is that it gives $100 performance, with a $500 price tag. Criticize me for that assessment if you want, but that's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Click to expand...

I think that's a terrible assessment with little grounding in reality.

I mean, sure, if you're going to use it as a macro lens, then yes, it will under-perform. By all means, return it, and stick the manufacturer with the cost of your idiotic decision. But that lens is widely considered one of the true bargains in the Nikon FF/Telephoto line-up, and your assessment does not do it justice.

Click to expand...

Wow. I'm happy that you are happy with the lens. Use it. Love it. Bask in its glory. My assessment is different. But an "idiotic decision"? Seriously. Get a grip on reality. You act like I just kicked your dog. It'll be OK. Really. It will.

This is some of these people's reaction when ANYTHING with the brand name NIKON printed on it is not exalted and revered by it's new owner.

Nikon 70-300mm VR lens - Would you be happy with these results?

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Attachments

Senior Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts