Nikon 500mm AF-S - will it be worth spending more on the VR version?
May 22, 2016 09:38:50 #
Apologies if this question has been asked before. I did do a search but couldn't find anything relevant.
I currently have the manual focus Nikon 500/f4P and am toying with the idea of upgrading to an autofocus version. I can pick up a straight 500mm AF-S for about $3,000 or a VR version for approximately double that.
Having been very happy with the 300mm f4 (non-VR) I am trying to decide whether I really need VR or not. I know that it would equate to a couple of extra f-stops, and with the majority of my photography being wildlife at dawn/dusk that would undoubtedly come in very useful, but I have to weigh that against the extra cost.
Talking about weight, I see the straight AF-S version comes in at 3.43kg and the VR version at around 3.88kg so this might also be a consideration. Carrying either around is going to be fun!
I'd be interested if anyone has tried both lenses and can offer any observations that might help me decide.
I currently have the manual focus Nikon 500/f4P and am toying with the idea of upgrading to an autofocus version. I can pick up a straight 500mm AF-S for about $3,000 or a VR version for approximately double that.
Having been very happy with the 300mm f4 (non-VR) I am trying to decide whether I really need VR or not. I know that it would equate to a couple of extra f-stops, and with the majority of my photography being wildlife at dawn/dusk that would undoubtedly come in very useful, but I have to weigh that against the extra cost.
Talking about weight, I see the straight AF-S version comes in at 3.43kg and the VR version at around 3.88kg so this might also be a consideration. Carrying either around is going to be fun!
I'd be interested if anyone has tried both lenses and can offer any observations that might help me decide.
May 22, 2016 09:49:23 #
willie_gunn wrote:
Apologies if this question has been asked before. ... (show quote)
Have not used these lenses - but just my similar experienced observations .....If the majority of your subjects are static then, IMO VR has some value to you. If your subjects are moving and you are using higher shutter speeds to stop action anyway, the value goes down. If you are using support of some kind, anyway, the value goes down.
May 22, 2016 10:51:33 #
willie_gunn wrote:
Apologies if this question has been asked before. ... (show quote)
If you are going to be using it hand held, yes.
May 22, 2016 13:52:17 #
Many thanks.
Mostly I shoot using a monopod with a gimble head, so it sounds like VR might be a luxury.
Mostly I shoot using a monopod with a gimble head, so it sounds like VR might be a luxury.
May 23, 2016 06:36:25 #
I have a Nikon 600 f/4 with VR.
- I almost always use it on a tripod or beanbag, in which cases I turn the VR off.
- I had the non VR version of this lens before, it gave similar results to the VR version (on a tripod or beanbag).
- We got a Sigma 150-600 Sports and in most cases I now use it instead of my Nikon 600. It is lighter, more portable and hand holdable.
- With the newer, low-noise-at-high-ISO cameras it is easier to compensate for movement by just upping the shutter speed.
- Hand holding allows more flexibility in getting a fleeting wildlife shot as compared to using a tripod.
- I love my 600 f/4 VR. It takes wonderful pictures but I find myself gravitating to my Sigma.
- In my opinion if you plan primarily tripod use the VR feature may not be needed.
IMHO
Walt Custer
- I almost always use it on a tripod or beanbag, in which cases I turn the VR off.
- I had the non VR version of this lens before, it gave similar results to the VR version (on a tripod or beanbag).
- We got a Sigma 150-600 Sports and in most cases I now use it instead of my Nikon 600. It is lighter, more portable and hand holdable.
- With the newer, low-noise-at-high-ISO cameras it is easier to compensate for movement by just upping the shutter speed.
- Hand holding allows more flexibility in getting a fleeting wildlife shot as compared to using a tripod.
- I love my 600 f/4 VR. It takes wonderful pictures but I find myself gravitating to my Sigma.
- In my opinion if you plan primarily tripod use the VR feature may not be needed.
IMHO
Walt Custer
May 23, 2016 07:24:48 #
I had the 500 f/4 VR version loved it but heavy could not hand hold it Now using the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 and can handhold all day is sharp sold my 500 f/4
May 23, 2016 07:46:20 #
If you use a tripod you have to turn off the VR. Better off without it unless you are doing lots of hand held shots. Also it's suggested not to use VR or for fast moving objects.
May 23, 2016 08:19:18 #
May 23, 2016 08:39:20 #
You might need a 200-500. The VR on it is awesome. The manual tells you to always leave it on with a monopod and most times with a tripod.
Depending on your camera the f5.6 may not be an issue. It isn't with a D800.
You'll save a lot of money and have the flexibility of the zoom. Few would be able to detect the image quality difference.
Depending on your camera the f5.6 may not be an issue. It isn't with a D800.
You'll save a lot of money and have the flexibility of the zoom. Few would be able to detect the image quality difference.
May 23, 2016 08:39:59 #
AzShooter1 wrote:
If you use a tripod you have to turn off the VR. Better off without it unless you are doing lots of hand held shots. Also it's suggested not to use VR or for fast moving objects.
Not with the new 200-500.
May 23, 2016 08:42:49 #
wcuster wrote:
I have a Nikon 600 f/4 with VR. br - I almost alwa... (show quote)
For your fourth point you might have meant "upping the ISO".
May 23, 2016 08:44:53 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Mac wrote:
If you are going to be using it hand held, yes.
May 23, 2016 08:55:37 #
I second MtnMans suggestion on the 200-500. The lens is sharp and the VR is amazing. Ialways shoot it handheld, though I wouldn't rule out future use of a tripod.
May 23, 2016 09:02:02 #
not unless you really need it. look at all those years we got along without it or auto focus.
May 23, 2016 09:17:01 #
Cordell Okie
Loc: Edmond, OK
As others have said you should look at the 200-500. On a recent trip to Africa I used this lens with a D810 and shot mostly hand held and had great results. Attached are a couple of shots.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.