Nikkor 70-300 4-5.6 VR for wedding

[michael_k.1]

<p>Hi,<br>

Is anyone of you, wedding photographers, using the Nikkor 70-300 4-5.6 VR lens ?<br>

I have professional skills and know that 2.8 is better ...but money is an issue for me right now.<br>

If someone is using this lens, can you pls tell me if its enough sharp to get professional results.<br>

I use the Sigma 70-300 APO, which has a sloooooow focus and doesn't find the eyes (lets say that it stops more on the nose or on the ears... front/back focus problem)<br>

I would use it mainly for portrait sessions and kids photography (inhouse use with 5.6 to 8 aperture)<br>

Thanks for your advice...<br>

Bye<br>

Mike</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>This is like asking if a Stanley Hammer is good enough for hitting a nail.</p>

<p>The answer is.....Maybe yes. Or, maybe no....</p>

<p>SO much detail you haven't begun to tell us.......</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I don't do weddings, but have done a bunch of events. The 70-300 4-5.6 VR is excellent outdoors in good light, and it is very sharp, but it's not fast enough for indoor shooting. With flash, it'll force you to use a lot of power and kill your batteries. Without flash, it'll force you into high ISO and be difficult to focus. The f/5.6 maximum aperture is not great for portraits either. If you look enough, you can find an 80-200mm f/2.8 two-touch Nikon used in good condition for less than the cost of a new 70-300 4-5.6 VR.</p>

[ker_b]

<p>I highly doubt you would need a 70-300 for portraits. A typical portrait lens is anywhere from 35-85.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>For kids photography indoors I can see no use for any focal length above 85mm. The best pictures happen close up, and the layout of many homes will confine you to shooting inside a 10 feet range, suggesting focal lengths of 35mm - 85mm. At that distance with those focal lengths you won't get any subject separation at f5.6 to f8.</p>

<p>So I'd say the 70-300 is of little practical use for your purposes. In your shoes I'd want a couple of fast primes.</p>

<p>To answer the first part of your question, no I don't use the 70-300 myself. It's too long, too slow and not suited to my needs. You'll also find the AF works less well, simply because of the aperture constraints. As you've discovered with your Sigma, the smaller the working aperture, the less there is for the AF to work with.</p>

[mccosh]

<p>I am a wedding photographer and have the 70-300 lens and love it. Use it at each wedding for a few longer distance shots. here are a few examples from one recent wedding. To answer your question yes it is sharp enough for excellent results.</p>

<p>Cheers<br />John</p>

<p>First Image - ISO 200, 116mm, f/8.0, 1,1000 sec.</p><div></div>

[mccosh]

<p>Second image<br>

ISO 200, 112mm, f/8.0 1/800 sec</p><div></div>

[mccosh]

<p>Third image<br>

ISO 200, 140mm, f/4.8, 1/400sec</p><div></div>

[mccosh]

<p>Fourth Image<br>

ISO 200, 220mm, f/5.3, 1/320 sec</p><div></div>

[mccosh]

<p>I have just checked the stats. I have 22,901 wedding shots on my current drive and 1,320 off these where taking with the 70 - 300 VR lens. I also use it inside church's when I need a close up shot of the couple but are not able to physically get close enough for the shot.<br />Here is an example of such a shot. This is a shot of the father of the groom overcome with the day. this was shot at 300mm at 1/30 sec, VR sure does work.</p>

<p>ISO 200, 300mm, f/5.6 1/30sec</p>

[mccosh]

<p>The image</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p> I don’t use Nikon any more, but in regard to <em>“</em><strong><em>portrait sessions and kids photography (inhouse use with 5.6 to 8 aperture). . . Thanks for your advice”</em></strong><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

I am assuming “in house” means inside.<br>

I would choose a Prime Lens for this task. One reason for using Prime Lenses with kids’ Portraiture is the more rapid and accurate AF (because of the faster Aperture). <br>

A Constant Max Aperture zoom, like a 70 to 200/2.8, would likely suffice apropos AF speed, but a Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom (F/4 to F5.6) I would not consider for this job, as at approximately FL=100mm the Maximum Aperture Available would be F/5.<br>

I am not intimate with the minute details of the Nikon AF system . . . but I think you will be trading one product for little gain and still be frustrated with AF when shooting kids’ portraiture, indoors.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>I have the Nikon 55-200 plastic thingy and when hand-held it will run circles around any lens that does not have stabilization. Most of the R&D money goes into the zooms these days, and if you check photozone.de you will learn that most primes, except for the new ones from Nikon and any others, are very old formulas from film days.</p>

[amitpatel]

<p>I got 70-300 VR for over year now. I don't do weddings (atleast for now) but for children portraits I find it very handy. How ever when I go over 200mm photos do gets little reduced sharpness. <br>

I will be selling this soon and upgrade to 200 VR 2.8f. sample photo attached</p><div></div>

[left_ayyones]

<p>The 70-300 VR works great if you are 1) outdoors and 2) want to shoot candids at a distance. I've seen great shots with it on a tripod, back behind where everyone sits, and the photog got very sharp pictures of the ceremony at 300mm. (Granted there were two other photogs there closer up as well.</p>

<p>Otherwise, pick up an old 80-200 AF D for $500 to $1000 depending on condition. Google "nikon 80-200 history" and go to the first link for a good overview.</p>

<p>For example, KEH.com is selling the older push-pull Nikon 80-200 F2.8 D MACRO ED (77) with hood and caps for $500 in EX condition. That's cheaper than a new 70-300 VR.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>While you can use any lens, the 70-300/VR lens is not a wedding lens.</p>

[michael_k.1]

<p>Hi All,<br>

thanks a lot for your answers and postings...<br>

It seems to be a good lens for the price, but will not match my needs (charpness issue...)<br>

Thanks again for your help.<br>

Mike</p>

[left_ayyones]

<p>ah, the <strong>charpness </strong>issue! when cheapness and sharpness are both required... :-)</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>How much sharpness do you want? Every pore in some poor subjects face? I thought Amit's pictures were sharp enough.<br>

Sharp enough for a large group? I have an old Tamron manual focus 28mm that really does that job at f8 - you can do 50 people and see eye detail.</p>

[rae_jean_erickson]

<p>I've used this at weddings for, hmm...5 years or more? I've always LOVED this lens. For candids outside or well-lit areas and outdoor portraits it's been great. However, it's not been great in a dark church. I am also looking to upgrade right now and am looking at the <strong>80-200, 2.8 </strong>only because I can't afford what I reeeally want right now, which is the 70-200, 2.8. Both are much heavier than the 70-300 4-5.6 though. <br>

I love the paparazzi-style I can shoot with that 70-300 - you can catch some great candids from far away. But, again, have used it several times during a ceremony and unless there is lots o' light, forget it!<br>

So...just depends on what exactly you will use it for.<br>

~ Rae</p><div></div>