VR or OS vs Larger aperatre

timboellis said:
I am looking at a couple of lenses nikon 80 400mm f 4.5 5.6 if-ed vr and a Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 non OS

So realistically what would be better zooming in without VR at 2.8 or 5.6 via Stabiisation ?
Click to expand...
I would say you need to try them as what suits others may not suit you. Firstly there will be a huge difference is size and weight of the two lenses. I can hand hold a lens the size of the 80-400 much easier than a lens the size of the 120-300. Both a large aperture and stabilisation will help get a sharp image but in different ways. Stabilisation is great for non moving subjects as it can help lower the ISO by letting you use a slower shutter speed. A large aperture is great to gather light to increase the shutter speed or enabling a lower ISO to be used, but at the expense of a smaller DoF. Where stabilisation doesn’t help is where you need a fast shutter speed because your subject is moving especially in lower light. That’s where fast aperture lenses are best (think sports photographers there is a reason many of them use f2.8 lenses. Generally f2.8 lenses should have faster and more accurate AF than a f5.6 lens. One aspect that could come into play is the age of the lens, the 120-300 non os is a much older design, whereas the 80-400 VR is a newer design (actually are we talking the newer G version 80-400 or the older D version?).

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘what would be better zooming in’, aperture and stabilisation don’t affect zooming, it’s the longer focal length that potentially can cause blur resulting from camera shake (insufficient shutter speed for the focal length).

What are you planning to photograph with the lens? Will it be moving?
 
Thanks that's helped a lot, what I mean by zooming in was zooming right in gives more camera shake and on the 80 400mm will give a smaller aperature.

I think I would be using mine for Deer / birds mostly static however the occasional fast moving family pet.
 
No stabilisation on a 135mm is not nice hand held IMO. 300 - 400 I would not even bother try unless on a tripod with static subject.

However not all OS is equal, I found that OS on newer expensive lenses is far better that on budget lenses or older lenses in my experiance
 
timboellis said:
Thanks that's helped a lot, what I mean by zooming in was zooming right in gives more camera shake and on the 80 400mm will give a smaller aperature.

I think I would be using mine for Deer / birds mostly static however the occasional fast moving family pet.
Click to expand...

Longer focal lengths will potentially sufficient more from camera shake depending on how good you are at hand holding. I’ve seen some that can hand hold a 500mm f4 at reasonable shutter speeds. It’s hard to say which will be more useful, if you have good light or a camera that has great ISO performance, a slower shutter speed or small aperture don’t have as much of an affect. If light is poor and you need a fast shutter speed a fast aperture can really help.

What type of light will you likely be out in?
 
I have the Nikon AFs 80-400mm VR lens you are asking about. The VR really good can't fault it. even at 400mm.. having said that for me it is not a lens I would like to carry about all day, it is a bit on the heavy side
 
realspeed said:
I have the Nikon AFs 80-400mm VR lens you are asking about. The VR really good can't fault it. even at 400mm.. having said that for me it is not a lens I would like to carry about all day, it is a bit on the heavy side
Click to expand...
Excellent thanks, I have a D300 and looking at various lenses the Nikon being one of them, I have already sent an older lens off to MPB and have asked about trading in to the Sigma 120-300 2.8 but have seen your lens and made me think about that. Mainly it would be left in the car for taking picture when out dog walking and for taking pictures of stags and wildlife.

Gives me something to think about
 
Pity you are at the wrong end of the country ;) or you could have tried out mine. I too have the D300 -D800 and the D810.. I got mine from HDEW as a grey import
 
Last edited:
If I take birds in flight then I look for 1/2000 if I hand hold with my sigma 150-600c at around f8. This seems to work for me and I do leave the “is” on
 
timboellis said:
Lol yeah that's the problem, do I get the hefty 120-300 or lighter 80-400 so far looking at the 80-400 more
Click to expand...

When I got my sigma it was a choice of that or the canon 100-400 mk2 but I went for reach. The 150-600s was just to heavy
 
I'm not sure which lens this is "nikon 80 400mm f 4.5 5.6 if-ed vr." There's the earlier AF "D" and the later AF-S "G" versions... I would not buy the earlier version for faster stuff (AF is slow).

Personally I would get the 120-300/2.8... I have the 2010 version with OS but I almost never use it (OS). Another advantage of the f/2.8 is that it works well with TC's (I use a 2x frequently). But it is not a light lens (plus and minus IMO). I don't know anything about the earlier non-OS models...

I also own the 80-400 G. It's my "travel lens" when size/weight is the most important aspect. Otherwise I almost never use it. It's a very good lens IMO, but it's just kind of stuck in the middle (FL/Aperture).
 
Last edited:
How about the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 if you can live with or cover the lack of short range? I ran the 200-500mm against the newer "G" 80-400mm for a few months then sold off the 80-400mm (to MPB!).

No issues hand-holding the 200-500mm and easy enough to lug around all day, along with the 70-200mm f2.8 to cover the shorter range stuff.

Just my 2 cents!

GC
 
sk66 said:
I'm not sure which lens this is "nikon 80 400mm f 4.5 5.6 if-ed vr." There's the earlier AF "D" and the later AF-S "G" versions... I would not buy the earlier version for faster stuff (AF is slow).

Personally I would get the 120-300/2.8... I have the 2010 version with OS but I almost never use it (OS). Another advantage of the f/2.8 is that it works well with TC's (I use a 2x frequently). But it is not a light lens (plus and minus IMO). I don't know anything about the earlier non-OS models...

I also own the 80-400 G. It's my "travel lens" when size/weight is the most important aspect. Otherwise I almost never use it. It's a very good lens IMO, but it's just kind of stuck in the middle (FL/Aperture).
Click to expand...

Ive got the same 120-300 os. I also tend not to use the os as much of the time the shutter speeds for sport or wildlife mainly dont warrant os use. The fast aperture and reach are what i’m after. I went on a photography holiday for bird photography and carried this most of the week on a d500 but its not a lens i’m going to wander about with on the off chance- if i’m doing that then its the 150-600 i stick on
 
gcgraphs said:
How about the Nikkor 200-500mm f5.6 if you can live with or cover the lack of short range? I ran the 200-500mm against the newer "G" 80-400mm for a few months then sold off the 80-400mm (to MPB!).

No issues hand-holding the 200-500mm and easy enough to lug around all day, along with the 70-200mm f2.8 to cover the shorter range stuff.

Just my 2 cents!

GC
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top