Nikon 300/2.8 VR vs non-VR versions

P

pasterw

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13
Name
Wolfgang
Edit My Images
No
Hi everybody,

I recently acquired the AF-S Nikkor 300mm 1:2.8 D and was wondering what the biggest difference (besides the VR) between this lens and the newer VR versions is? Is the optical quality of the new lenses superior? Are there improvements in the AF-performance? To be honest, AF of the 300/2.8 on my D300 is pretty impressive already.

Thanks for your input,
Wolfgang
 
Is it the MKI or MKII version, the MKI is slightly slower than the never MKII and VR versions but not a lot in it, the VR also has Nano coating.
 
Nano coating might sound like a small thing (no pun intended) but it really does boost IQ.

Using a lens with and without you can easily see the difference it makes.

However, what price tag would I place on this as a feature? Hmmmm not sure!
 
Gary,

It's the MKI version. Concerning the VR, I still don't get it's benefits for a 3kg lens. By no means will you use it hand-held. It has to go on a sturdy tripod or at least monopod.

Cheers,
Wolfgang
 
I use my 300 VRII handheld on a D3 and it's fine. I don't often use the VR but for some candid shots at service etc I can get down to around 1/60-1/100sec hand held with VR on.

No idea on how IQ compares to the older ones but this VRII just amazes me every time I shoot.

DB
 
pasterw said:
Gary,

It's the MKI version. Concerning the VR, I still don't get it's benefits for a 3kg lens. By no means will you use it hand-held. It has to go on a sturdy tripod or at least monopod.

Cheers,
Wolfgang
Click to expand...
If its definatly the MKI version then the biggest and probably most important difference in Nikon no longer service them :(
 
I haven't used the older ones, but the VR on the mk2 is sheer wichcraft. 1/50th is no problem. Mental.
 
1/50th, now THAT sounds interesting! I reckon the VRII is also a bit lighter than the older versions?!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top