Are there any Nikon fit tele-macro lens with VR/OS?

S

SuperCNJ

Messages
364
Edit My Images
Yes
As above, I would like a lens which can do both long zooms and macro photography but with the vibration reduction or optical stabiliser function.

I've been looking at the Sigma 70-300mm APO tele-macro but it doesn't have OS. The Nikon 70-300 has VR but does not have macro.

Any ideas guys? :shrug:

EDIT: Also has anyone heard of the Nikon AF 75-300G lens? I can't seem to find any info on it?
 
FranchiseJuan said:
Is there not a Nikon 105 F2.8 VR?
Click to expand...

I may have worded my question wrong. I have a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens but I find that the zoom isn't quite enough, so I need at least 300mm for the photos I take. But I would also like to take some macro photos as well.
 
mattyh said:
Macro (proper macro lenses) are generally prime lenses, I don't think there is a telephoto zoom that has 1:1 on it, so they're not a "true" macro lens.
Click to expand...

I saw some photos taken with a Sigma 70-300 using the macro function and I must admit I was quite impressed. I know the general consensus is to have separate lenses but as a novice I thought a combined one would be more economical until I'm a bit more capable.
 
There's a Nikkor 70-180 Micro lens (though not 1:1) which is now quite old and doesn't have VR. Otherwise, there are no Nikkor Micro zooms.

I think your best bet at the moment is a set of extension tubes, though that will require a lens with an aperture ring (not a G type lens.)
 
SuperCNJ the sigma is not a true macro its 1:2 (1/2 size) and you may struggle when trying to shoot smaller things like bugs, as mattyh says a true macro lens is at least 1:1 and usually a prime lens.
 
SuperCNJ said:
I've been looking at the Sigma 70-300mm APO tele-macro
Click to expand...

I've just picked up this exact lens from Microglobe for £136 delivered :D

I'm also an amateur, so the 1:2 Macro doesn't bother me to much, as I'll probably pick up a 1:1 prime lens at some point in the future with Manual focus ;)
 
andyj said:
I've just picked up this exact lens from Microglobe for £136 delivered :D

I'm also an amateur, so the 1:2 Macro doesn't bother me to much, as I'll probably pick up a 1:1 prime lens at some point in the future with Manual focus ;)
Click to expand...

This is what I'm thinking, but at 300mm zoom it would be nice to have some VR or OS which I love on my Nikkor 18-200VR lens. I can only imagine that hand held shots at full zoom may be a problem especially when shoot difficult objects like track cars.
 
I just got the Nikkor 70-300VR. Lovely lens and nice and sharp. If i were you I would get that and a true macro lens, or get a Sigma 70-300 APO. Not a true macro lens and no VR, but nice and sharp at the macro( 1:2) end and easily holdable at 300mm
I recently bought a used Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX Macro lens that has 1:1 because I wanted a proper macro lens.
I think, to get what you really want, you will have to be prepared to change lenses now and again.
Allan
 
SuperCNJ said:
This is what I'm thinking, but at 300mm zoom it would be nice to have some VR or OS which I love on my Nikkor 18-200VR lens. I can only imagine that hand held shots at full zoom may be a problem especially when shoot difficult objects like track cars.
Click to expand...

VR isn't a save-all, I had a 70-300 without VR, it wasn't fast (something like f4-5.6) and it was perfectly hand-holdable at 300mm... I've now got the 70-200 2.8 which has got VR, but I very rarely use it to be honest.

If you're finding the shutter speed dropping, you'd be better upping the ISO IMO
 
mattyh said:
VR isn't a save-all, I had a 70-300 without VR, it wasn't fast (something like f4-5.6) and it was perfectly hand-holdable at 300mm... I've now got the 70-200 2.8 which has got VR, but I very rarely use it to be honest.

If you're finding the shutter speed dropping, you'd be better upping the ISO IMO
Click to expand...

Yeah I know the VR isn't a save-all. But it does help a lot with the photos I take. I take a lot of motorsport photos which means a lot of full zoom hand held shooting whilst panning... I haven't quite perfected the technique but I find it much harder than shooting animals for example which aren't always on the move. I've never used a 300mm lens before but as I find VR very useful at 200mm then it makes sense to have it at 300mm.

I do have to shoot at very high shutter speeds especially when its windy but shooting at 400 ISO and above causes a lot of noise on my camera. So I tend to up the EV a bit and have the aperture very wide - I shoot in manual or shutter priority mainly.
 
SuperCNJ said:
Yeah I know the VR isn't a save-all. But it does help a lot with the photos I take. I take a lot of motorsport photos which means a lot of full zoom hand held shooting whilst panning... I haven't quite perfected the technique but I find it much harder than shooting animals for example which aren't always on the move. I've never used a 300mm lens before but as I find VR very useful at 200mm then it makes sense to have it at 300mm.

I do have to shoot at very high shutter speeds especially when its windy but shooting at 400 ISO and above causes a lot of noise on my camera. So I tend to up the EV a bit and have the aperture very wide - I shoot in manual or shutter priority mainly.
Click to expand...



You do know that for panning shots you should always turn the VR off? Otherwise the lens interprets the panning movement as camera shake and tries to cancel it out!
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You do know that for panning shots you should always turn the VR off? Otherwise the lens interprets the panning movement as camera shake and tries to cancel it out!
Click to expand...

This is not quite correct. In normal VRII mode the lens will detect panning and only apply VR in one dimension. In active mode it will attempt to remove all motion.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You do know that for panning shots you should always turn the VR off? Otherwise the lens interprets the panning movement as camera shake and tries to cancel it out!
Click to expand...

Not quite true.... the 70-200 (and others probably, but I own the 70-200) has 2 modes... one which can be used for panning, and one that can't, so you don't have to turn the VR off :)
 
mattyh said:
Not quite true.... the 70-200 (and others probably, but I own the 70-200) has 2 modes... one which can be used for panning, and one that can't, so you don't have to turn the VR off :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction, it's ages since I got rid of my 70-300 VR, I'd forgotten about the 2 mode vr ;) Even so, the vr still fights against you to a certain extent and shouldn't really be necessary anyway if you have a good panning technique. A lot of people seem to think that vr helps stop motion blur in pictures, it doesn't, all it does is remove the blur caused by movement of the camera.

I still maintain that fast glass is much better than vr and the 80-200 f/2.8 isn't that much more than the 70-300 VR but produces far superior images
 
I agree with you there... faster glass is better than VR ever will be (y)

larger maximum aperture = faster shutter speed = no motion blur.

As Flash In the pan said

vr doesn't help stop motion blur in pictures, it doesn't, all it does is remove the blur caused by movement of the camera.
Click to expand...

Thought that bit was worth emphasising again ;) :D

edited for sense
 
Misquoted me a wee bit there ;)

A lot of people seem to think that vr helps stop motion blur in pictures, it doesn't, all it does is remove the blur caused by movement of the camera
 
My Sigma 70-300mm APO arrived today, and I'm hoping to get some panning practice in on Sunday at Gti International at Bruntingthorpe ;)

Can highly recommend Microglobe for supplying the lens :D
 
mattyh said:
I agree with you there... faster glass is better than VR ever will be (y)

larger maximum aperture = faster shutter speed = no motion blur.

As Flash In the pan said

Thought that bit was worth emphasising again ;) :D

edited for sense
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Afterall thats all pros had before VR was invented. But decent fast glass is expensive.

I have tried panning with and without VR, and I'm convinced that it does make a difference. I don't know if its sods law, but its always been a bit breezy when I shoot motorsport so I need all the help I can get!

Anyway, back to my original question. It sounds as if theres no point looking for a 70-300 macro with VR lens - as there currently isn't one. So are there any decent but relatively cheap macro lenses? And any recommendations for a long zoom lens for motorsport/wildlife shooting?
 
mattyh said:
How much is your budget? for both?
Click to expand...

Well to be honest the macro can wait as its just something I want to try. The tele zoom lens is something I would like more as my 18-200VR is not quite enough.

As the 70-300mm APO is £130-£140 and that I've just spent £400 on the 18-200, I would say around £200?

I suppose if the 70-300 APO is perfectly ok to shoot hand held at full zoom I may be tempted to go for that. But I'm not sure if A) Its useable for motorsport without VR B) whether 300mm will be sufficient?
 
I don't shoot motorsport, so I can't really help you, but I'm pretty sure that some of the guys & gals on here shoot with 300mm lenses, so it'd be useable... You may have to up the ISO to get a reasonably decent shutter speed, but then if you're panning, then you'll be using a slow(er) shutter speed than normal, so you might not have to.

I'd guess whether the 300mm would be long enough boils down to how far away from the track you were :shrug:
 
Peachy said:
I've got a Sigma 70 - 300mm APO DG Macro and I got some cracking sharp shots panning at the Goodwood Revival last year. It was a dull day too. Now if I can just remember where I archived them I can post a sample......
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'd like to ask whether you had any problems with the lens as I heard that there are quality control issues with Sigma lenses. Are there any things in particular I should be checking for when getting one?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I still maintain that fast glass is much better than vr and the 80-200 f/2.8 isn't that much more than the 70-300 VR but produces far superior images
Click to expand...

It's not that simple.

If you want to photograph motion then you need speed or lots of light. (Of course you can use higher iso's these days so f/5.6 on the D300 is about as usable as f/2.8 on the D100. OTOH autofocus can be an issue and the viewfinder can be almost unusable, so speed still wins by a bit.)

If shooting static subjects handheld in low light then the 70-300mm will outperform the 80-200mm for resolution and it's not close. No doubt the 80-200 is a good piece of kit but performance will suffer a lot at f/2.8. In the same light the 70-300 can use it's minimum 3-stop advantage to shoot at f/8.

Still the 80-200 will win on chromatic aberrations (which are correctable though) and DOF control, which is the big one if you need it.

As for which has the best resolution at medium apertures over the 80-200mm range - well Nikon has been proving over and over that the state of the art has moved on in the past 12 years. You can check the photozone results and nikon's MTFs for yourself.
 
Jamougha said:
As for which has the best resolution at medium apertures over the 80-200mm range - well Nikon has been proving over and over that the state of the art has moved on in the past 12 years. You can check the photozone results and nikon's MTFs for yourself.
Click to expand...


I don't need to check any MTF charts, I've used both lenses on the same body and the 80-200 wins hands down, optically it is far superior, producing crisper images with better colours. I don't say that lightly, as I think the 70-300 VR is an excellent lens, it's just not up to the standard of the 80-200.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I don't need to check any MTF charts, I've used both lenses on the same body and the 80-200 wins hands down, optically it is far superior, producing crisper images with better colours. I don't say that lightly, as I think the 70-300 VR is an excellent lens, it's just not up to the standard of the 80-200.
Click to expand...

I said resolution, not colour or contrast. :) They're quite different though colour and contrast are probably more important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top