What Do I Need More? VR or f2.8

Andysnap

Andysnap

Messages
16,326
Name
Andy Grant
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, heres the thing. I've started getting into bird/wildlife shots a bit more just recently and I've been using the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO DG. now its a good sharp lens for the money but....it hasn't got VR and its not f2.8.

What would help more do you think, VR or faster glass?

The Nikon 70-300mm with VR is about £420 ish and the Sigma 120-400mm
f4.5-5.6 with HSM is about £550 ish or do we look at primes? (ouch)

Cheers

Andy
 
I'd go with f/2.8 over VR every time, with a 70-200mm f/2.8 sigma when you add a 1.4X TC on and you're still only f/4 at 280mm

you can't beat the sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 for the money, add on a 1.4x and you're up to a 420mm f/4
 
wack61 said:
I'd go with f/2.8 over VR every time, with a 70-200mm f/2.8 sigma when you add a 1.4X TC on and you're still only f/4 at 280mm

you can't beat the sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 for the money, add on a 1.4x and you're up to a 420mm f/4
Click to expand...

Sounds plausible, but expensive, still I'm in no rush. save, save,save.

TommyGun said:
It really depends on how much you are willing to spend.
Click to expand...

See above. I think I'll hang around and see if prices come down a bit before deciding definitively what to do.

Cheers

Andy
 
another lens to consider if you want to spend less money is the tokina 80-400mm I had one for a while and was quite impressed with it,
 
Just had a look and its certainly less expensive. Looks a bit of a beast though...

Andy
 
I don't think given your budget that you'll get much in the way of f/2.8 glass, but if you're using a tripod Nikon recommend you switch the VR off on the 70-300, which would defeat the purpose of paying extra for it.....
 
So up the budget or get a better tripod...mmmm.... which would be cheaper :thinking: Ah ha, win the lottery problem solved. :D

Andy
 
Just like the Canon 70-300 IS, the Nikon 70-300 VR is a peach of a tele lens.

If you want decent reach for little money it blows the competition away for IQ and speed of focusing, plus if you want it, you've got VR too.

Oh and its FX too!
 
I would keep what you have - your budget is not enough to make a difference.
 
I've got a Sigma f2.8 and my dad has the Nikon 70-300 VR both very good and took nice shots with both! Constant f2.8 is good the evening shot/lower light other than that i'd go Nikon, sure the D90 would be ok to up the iso if needed!

Simon
 
Wildlife / Birds you need reach primary requirement, f4 on big glass is fine, f2.8 at a decent focal length is going to cost big bucks.

The 80-400VR is a good choice, and compact I did have one, but sold it when I got the 300 f4, which is sharp wide open and great with a 1.4TC on it.

So I would suggest one of those, for quality the 300 + 1.4tc is the choice, for convenience the 80-400VR.
 
Don't forget the Sigma and Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 which are both ~£650 at present.
 
Fast glass all day long.

JMO.
 
packham said:
f/2.8 + good tripod!
Click to expand...

I agree and then VR is not needed so much.

Having just umm'd and aarh'd at length on this, I have just bought a 300mm f/2.8 and VR. It is so heavy I have to use a tripod so the VR is a bit pointless.
 
If you're shooting from a tripod (and you should be for wildlife photography) then VR is useless anyway...go for the faster lens...VR actually makes images worse when used on a tripod due to the gyro setting up an interference vibration - it only works hand-held...

or, you could get an f/2.8 VR lens...lol
 
awp said:
I would keep what you have - your budget is not enough to make a difference.
Click to expand...

Ah well you see I don't have a budget really, I have aspirations and a savings account and time. So I could just wait a couple of years and get some fast glass or I could wait a couple of months and get VR. Still haven't decided but thanks everyone for your input. May do both, get the VR later this year and get the fast glass in 3 years, who knows.

Cheers

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