300mm 2.8 AF-S - VR or no VR, that is the ?

<p>I'm looking into purchasing a 300mm 2.8 AF-S lens and I am caught between getting the VR or not. The use of the lens in particular will be night baseball and football games as well as indoor MMA/fight press conferences/weigh-ins. Seeing the 300mm is a longer lens (and heavier) faster shutter speeds will be needed in most of the cases that I will be shooting in anyways, and I want to know if the $1500-$2000 more for the VR is going to be worth it. Most shoots will be with a monopod when the situation is available. Thanks.</p>

<p>You need shutter speed for sports, at least 1/250 to 1/1000, so you don't need the VR in the 300/2.8. The "MMA/..conference/weigh..." does not sound like action photography and I also doubt you need 300mms for this. With the $1500-$2000 cost saving you could get yourself a lens more suitable for the indoor poor lighting shots like a used 70-200/2.8 IS I or 135/2, or 180/2.8, or 85/1.4 etc....</p>

<p>You may also want to consider a TC-14E for the 300/2.8 as well.</p>

<p>That's what I was thinking. I have the 70-200 2.8 VR as well as the 85 1.4 also (my 70-300 just didn't cut it in these situations and the 70-200 was still short). The TC's are next on the list - 1.4 and 2.0. </p>

<p>My Canon days came through, sorry! "IS". </p>

<p>The only other lens that could be a good fit for your current system is a used Nikon 400/2.8 AF-S non-VR. Actually you could find one of these with that additional $1500-$2000. You might not want to carry one though. </p>

<p>The 400mm has been my other debate, but it seems they are a bit more rare and harder to find used.</p>

<p>If you have the money available, it is worth it.</p>

<p>Can you reliably handhold a 300/2.8 tele steadily at the expected shutter speed for a given scenario? Try to rent or at least handle a comparable lens first and find out.</p>

<p>I definitely cannot steadily handhold my 300/4.5 AI Nikkor below 1/250th second without supporting myself against a wall, utility pole or other support. So I would very definitely benefit from VR in a long lens, regardless of the available light. In my case, foregoing VR would be money wasted because I wouldn't be able to put a non-VR 300/2.8 to good use handheld. But that's me. And I wouldn't consider buying such an expensive lens without first renting or testing one for myself.</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice. I'm going to look at a used one this week (non-vr) so will take it out and see how its performs hand-held for myself. A local shop also has a vr version for sale, so will test that out after and see if i really need it.</p>

<p>First of all, for most people, the 300mm/f2.8 is not exactly a lens for hand holding. Your hands will likely get tired after a few minutes. Using it on a tripod or at least a monopod is the more likely scenario. Occasionally I use mine for birds in flight, but I need to put it down to rest my arms every few minutes.</p>

<p>If you are going to use it on a monopod at 1/60 sec or 1/125 sec indoors for non-action photography, having VR could be a plus. At high shutter speeds, VR will probably not help you all that much.</p>

<p>I only have the first AF-S version of the 300mm/f2.8. It is among the sharpest lens I own. Nikon has now added two VR versions of this lens. Version 2 has improved VR; otherwise, the two VR versions are essentially identical.</p>

<p>The 400mm/f2.8 is a very different lens. It is much bigger and heavier. If the 300mm/f2.8 is a little short, you can always add a TC-14E to make it longer. If 400mm is too long for you, you will be stuck. Think about your shooting conditions before you decide.</p>

<p>Is there any graph or chart that would show (hopefully specific to this lens) the positive effect of VR at given shutter speeds? Using a monopod, at what speed with the VR have no advantage, approximately?</p>

<p>I have the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S. I shoot mostly sports (some indoors), people, and wildlife and have never felt the need for VR. I use a monopod.</p>

<p>I use a monopod to support my 200/2 AI and 400/2.8 AIS, so that I don't have to. I don't use it to get slower shutter speeds since my primary subject with these lenses is sports where I want to stop the action. I would not want to rely on a monopod to take the place of a tripod. Even if the monopod gets you down to 1/90s if you are dealing with moving subjects it is not going to do you any good. Similarly with VR. VR may be able to get you down to 1/30s but just how useful is that going to be for your specific needs with the 300. Remembering that you do have the 70-200 VR to bail you out of the worst scenarios, and the 70-200 can actually be handheld for much longer periods of time than a 300/2.8.</p>

<p>I knew exactly how I would use a 400/2.8 before I bought it, even though I had never held one or seen one in person, I had evolved through a 400/4.5 and 300/2.8 though, and already had developed good monopod (and tripod) techniques with these heavy lenses. Be sure to check a 400/2.8 in person though since it is such a beast. I mentioned this lens since you already have the 70-200/2.8 and I am concerned that the 300 may not get you that much closer. </p>

<p>I understand how useful VR can be for lowlight portrait photography. I am thinking of musical/stage performances, weddings, that sort of thing. I do not know how well it combats vibration of the environment itself, like in a moving vehicle, or how well it dampens the photographer's motion as he/she pans with birds-in-flight. I also do not know if it helps mirror slap vibration which typically occurs at 1/15s.</p>

<p>I don't have much (read that "any" in the past 16 years) experience with zooms, which I do anticipate rectifying shortly, but I suspect that a long zoom would be wonderful for team field sports. The hugely expensive Nikon 200-400/4 comes to mind which also happens to have VR and AF-S. It is too bad that the Nikon 80-400 does not seem to have the autofocus capability for sports.</p>

<p>Great info John, thanks. Luckily I have a D700 as my main camera, but also a D60 backup at the moment, which gives me the crop factor (and 2.8) if I feel I am still too short. It also seems the 400mm is over twice the weight of the 300mm, and that is a huge factor in between those as well. And if the 80-400 had a larger aperture and faster AF i'd be all over it.</p>

<p>I'd pick the VR, assuming I could a) afford it and b) justify it. Main reason is the bokeh seems to be better from Bjorn's article, and VR is always a boon when needed.<br>

http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS300_28_VR_rev.html</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>I also don't think VR is very important for sport. Anything 1/500th sec or more is plenty fast enough to stop camera shake and is really the bare minimum you need for most sports.<br>

I've got the 200 f2 VR and 400 2.8 VR and so can speak from experience - using them with and without has made zero difference for me EXCEPT for static situations when you can lower the shutter speeds to lower ISO or increase depth of field (so portraits etc.)<br>

Steve</p>