VR (or other) influence on AF speed & focus accuracy

About a week ago I got an older non VR AF 70-300 4.5 5.6. So far its performance is so superior to AF S 28-300 3.5-5.6 VR and AF VR 80-400 4.5-5.6 D that I am astonished. On three occasions in the last week I have taken sequences of birds in flight with the lens, shooting single fast, un supported, with every shot crisp and sharply focused, at the long end of the zoom range - on the D7200, 450mm equivalent. I have not been able to get that kind of performance with either of the VR lenses. At the Micro end, it is at least equal to my AF micro Nikkor 105 2.8 D with a greater working distance at the long end of the zoom range, which avoids spooking the insects, and so provides more opportunities. I have used the VR lenses extensively on my DF and D 750, only a couple of times on the D 7200 as yet, but didn't see a FX DX difference though now I will have to run some tests. Previously, off the FX cameras, my best BIF have been with a monopod or tripod mounted ED 600 5.6, manual focus. Any thoughts on the subject will be appreciated!

This may have to do with sample variation--your 70-300 may be an unusually good copy and your other lenses may be average or below for their type. I'm not a Nikon DSLR owner, so I don't have any experience with any of these lenses, but even excellent lens makers like Nikon will have bad days or have lenses subjected to the tender mercies of shipping companies that drop things.

I'd expect any 28-300 to be a bit compromised, and bear in mind that Nikon won't let you AF tune at different zoom lengths (unlike Canon and Sigma). The 80-400 isn't all that hot at 400mm, but I thought it was better at 300 - though infamously slow to focus. That said, before the 70-300 VR (and Canon's IS version) most zooms like this were iffy at the long end, so well for done if you got a good one.

 

Nikon chose not to put VR in the first 24-70 for quality reasons, and Canon likewise kept the mk1 70-200 lenses available without IS to reduce optical compromises. It seems less of an issue these days. I'd still generally want VR on long glass, not least because it makes it easier to place the AF point on the subject.

Thanks for your replies, Gents!

I have no experience with a 28-300mm lenx. The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR AF-S is quite nice, although some users seem not to like it. Maybe there are sample-to-sample differences. I'm not surprised it would autofocus more effectively than the screw-driven Nikon 80-400mm D. I haven't noticed the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR AF-S to be faster or more decisive than Nikon's 80-400mm AF-S VR. It is, of course, much lighter, and thus easier to maneuver when following anything that moves fast.

 

But every single shot sharp and in focus? I don't achieve that even when I have somebody sitting for a portrait. ;>}

But every single shot sharp and in focus?

Double dog dare me? I'll post a sequence!

Sandy, no need to do that, particularly since I expect to be away for much of this month. I'm only saying that I get some focus misses. Best regards.

I'm not sure how much validity there is in comparing anything to the old 80-400D, which is pretty sluggish at auto focusing. But, on the issue of whether VR makes a difference, if your lens has a VR switch, you can eliminate sample variation and lens differences just by turning it on and off and seeing if it makes a difference.

 

I haven't noticed an issue with VR itself, but confess I have not done a real test. I suspect it's more a matter of what lenses you compare with.