srinidhi_ramachandra

<p>I agree with Dave and Zack. I have been using 16-85 mm VR over 2 years and have been very pleased with the IQ. The only downside of this lens is slow aperture. If you are looking for some fast glass, then obviously, you need to consider f/2.8 lens. I have played around a bit with 18-105 VR and it has a pretty ordinary build quality. 16-85 VR has a much better build quality and a very useful focal length range. All in all, in my experience, I have never been disappointed with this piece of glass.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I had this question myself last year when I wanted to buy a 70 - 200 mm VR. I eventually bought the VR1. I agree with most of the guys that VR 2, though I have not used it myself, would yield slightly better result overall and has better VR technology. If you want to seriously use it on an FX body, I think VR 2 is a better option. Even on DX bodies I saw some better quality pictures with VR2. I would like to add one more point here. VR 2 has focal length issues at closer focusing distance. This focus breathing issue has been discussed in this forum before. If you use the longer focal length regularly, you might well consider this issue. In fact this was the reason that I opted for VR1, since I shoot mostly at the telephoto end.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Srinidhi</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Well, I am getting some very good suggestions here. This thread is definitely helping me weigh all the options before I make my investment. Thanks to all</p>

<p>John,<br>

I agree with what you say to a certain extent. Since I have never used any telephoto lens without VR, I might tend to overestimate the function of VR. However, when I was in a safari in India 2 years ago, I had a day in the field with some very good wildlife sightings, but the light was not that good. On that day, VR did save my day. I had to shoot quite a few snaps at less than 1/100 of a second. As you pointed out, I got some pictures which were soft, but I would buy that over blurry or no picture of a rare sighting. Also, since most of my wildlife pictures will be in India, where the forests are quite dense, unlike photographing game in Africa, not everyday we end up with good lighting and I do believe VR is very handy. But nevertheless, I would experiment with my camera more before making a choice.</p>

 

<p>Alvin and Tom,<br>

Thanks for your suggestions. The only thing that is holding me back from not going for 300 mm f/4 is that it does not have VR. Since I started photography with VR lenses, I am more comfortable with VR. I hope Nikon upgrades this lens sooner. Anyways, I would weigh this option as well before finalizing my options.</p>

<p>Wouter,<br>

Thanks for your suggestions. As far as the TC is concerned, this would just be an attempt to get a better reach without burning my pocket for another lens. I very well know that at TC 20, there is a compromise with the lens being a 5.6. But this would leave me with an option of 600 mm on a crop body with f/5.6. Although this is not the best option, but this is definitely more than what I currently own. In addition, this would also be a lens for other purposes like portrait and candid shots as well.Some years down the lane, if I start with excessive wildlife photography, I might consider going for a fast telephoto prime with TC, and hence having a TC 20 will not be a bad idea. My reason for considering VR II was the better vibration reduction and better IQ even at f/2.8 although I have seen all the reports / tests on an FX body. So, again in terms of IQ, is it worth to spend few extra $$$ for VR II or is VR I good enough. I just read one of the reviews on amazon which only mentioned VR II is not as good as VR I with TCs, but no comparison provided. Does anybody have any experience with these two versions with TC 17 and TC 20?<br>

Thanks</p>

 

<p>Elliot,<br>

I did consider Sigma 120 - 300 f/2.8. However, it is too heavy for the safaris. It weighs a kilogram more than 120 - 300 mm f/2.8, and it does not have VR or OS and also more expensive. This lead me to discount this option. Moreover, a friend of mine, who is a serious photographer in India and he shoots with nikkor 70 - 200 VR I with TC 2x and he has some very nice pictures. In fact this is what motivated me to consider in this direction. You can have a look at his site.<br>

http://www.amoghavarsha.com/<br>

Moreover, in absence of the TC the 70 - 200 is a superb lens for portrait, candid and also for some closeup wildlife shots, and with a TC, it is a decent telephoto with reasonably good IQ, and hence I believe this to be a good bargain and hence I believe to be a decent option. But am not able to decide between VR I and VRII</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rene,<br>

Thanks for you suggestions. Well, I am not considering upgrading to a full frame. So, that brings me to the question that on a DX body, whether the FOV (magnification) issues on VR II and the TC options on VR II are in anyways better than the VR I. This is where i am not able to decide.</p>

<p>Dear Elliot,</p>

<p>Thanks for your suggestions. However, renting is not an option in India, and hence that would rule out the possibility. When I mentioned about 300 mm, well I meant that 70 - 300 mm is a decent telephoto lens, but the performance of the lens is not best at 300 mm in challenging light conditions. This is not uncommon for consumer grade zooms. I would be extremely surprised if the IQ of 70 - 200 mm VR + TC 1.7 and 70 - 300 mm VR at 300 mm are the same. Moreover, as I mentioned, that I am looking for the best compromise, since I cannot rent specific lenses for any specific occasions and due to my budget constraints. Hence I am considering 70 - 200 f/2.8 VR. But am not sure if VR I or VR II is the right option for me.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

This is my first posting here. I have been following this forum for about a year now and find most of the threads very useful and informative. I got interested in photography since 2007. I started with my canon S3 IS and then upgraded to DSLR. My main interests are wildlife, landscape, portraits and candid shots. Before I begin my question, here is the list of equipment that I own.<br>

D 300<br>

16 - 85 mm VR<br>

70 - 300 mm VR<br>

50 mm 1.8<br>

SB 600.<br>

I have been to a few safaris in India and was shooting with my 70 - 300 mm VR lens. I got some good pictures but most of the time I had the problem under challenging lighting conditions and also, I had a problem with the reach of this lens. In addition at wide open aperture , this lens is not so good at 300 mm. So, now for some months I have been contemplating on upgrading my telephoto lens. I am seriously considering a 70 - 200 mm f/ 2.8 lens with TC. I know that many would not agree with the idea of using a TC with a zoom lens. But I do not have the budget to buy two separate sets of lens for wildlife and other general interests mentioned above. I feel the 70 - 200 VR and TC combination gives me the flexibility. Since the VR II lens came up on the market I have read a lot about this lens and am seriously considering this lens with a TC 1.7 or TC 2.0.<br>

However, recently I read in some posts that this is not a very good performer with TCs as compared to VR I. I also read about the FOV issue with this lens. I am not sure how much this might affect my interests, especially when I am shooting wildlife, since I would be mostly focusing close to infinity. I would be buying this lens for fast aperture and also for the extra reach with the TC. So, I would like you guys to help me in this decision making. Is it worth going for VR II or should I buy the VR I version, or are there any other alternatives?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance<br>

Srinidhi</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to get a 70 - 300 VR. Its very good lens and value for the money and a very good telephoto zoom lens to begin with. I have one and abolutelely love it. I have shot a lot of pictures at 4 different safaris in India. I got some really nice shots with this.</p>

<p>I own a D 300 and both 16 - 85 mm VR and the 50 mm 1.8 prime. Both are very good. I was amazed by the IQ of 16 - 85mm. I agree with Joel that 2 option would be more versatile and since you have a limited budget, I would recommend the 2 lens option. Of course 16 - 85 is not a great choice in low ligh conditions, but with a D 300, you can always crank up the ISO and get good pictures.<br>

<br /> http://picasaweb.google.co.in/r.srinidhi/Misc#5327439393353872610<br /> <img src="http://picasaweb.google.co.in/r.srinidhi/Misc#5327439393353872610" alt="" /> <br /> 16 mm, f/3.5 1/10 s Hand Held; ISO 3200<br>

<br /> P.S: VR works very well on this lens and that can be an added advantage as well</p>