I have tried some shots at 135mm and they look superb, admit they were of planes a lot closer, but i could see the difference between 300mm and sub 200mm, miles different.
P.
Nikkor AF-S 70-300Vr Ed question or two
- Thread starter Paganman2
- Start date
I have tried some shots at 135mm and they look superb, admit they were of planes a lot closer, but i could see the difference between 300mm and sub 200mm, miles different.
P.
I have tried some shots at 135mm and they look superb, admit they were of planes a lot closer, but i could see the difference between 300mm and sub 200mm, miles different.
P.
It probably has more to do with your "holding the camera technique " At a 135mm you are introducing a lot less camera shake then at 300mm. I have shot a lot of shots with this lens, and I can't tell the difference in IQ whether it's at 70mm 150mm or 300mm. Yes, I know about lens scores, but it doesn't really mean anything to me. Real world results do.
What i was thinking was - it doesn't matter how close you might be to a subject in a picture, if its slightly soft and not sharp, you can not improve that even with sharpening, however if you first take a pin sharp clear picture that is well defined, surely that would take being cropped?
P.
P.
Surely its like using two different lenses - one a pro grade 200mm and cropping to 300mm and the other a 300mm that is slightly soft, wouldn't the 200mm be better even after cropping?
What i am saying if say a Nikkor 200mm f2.6 prime was cropped to the eqv of 300mm and compared to our lens at 300mm?
P.
What i am saying if say a Nikkor 200mm f2.6 prime was cropped to the eqv of 300mm and compared to our lens at 300mm?
P.
A slightly soft shot can be improved with sharpening. An out of focus shot can't be. If you are looking to take pin sharp clear pictures with detail galore that can be cropped without much loss of detail, you'll need a high MP camera like a D810 and a large aperture prime telephoto lens that can run you right in the poor house.
Why on Earth would anyone spend 10s of thousands of dollars for pro gear if they could get the same shot with a D7100 and a Tamzooka?
A slightly soft shot can be improved with sharpening. An out of focus shot can't be. If you are looking to take pin sharp clear pictures with detail galore that can be cropped without much loss of detail, you'll need a high MP camera like a D810 and a large aperture prime telephoto lens that can run you right in the poor house.
Why on Earth would anyone spend 10s of thousands of dollars for pro gear if they could get the same shot with a D7100 and a Tamzooka?
A friend of mine as an example back in cough cough days, had the exact same canon dslr as me but i had a 250mm zoom and he had a 200mm L f2.6 pro grade prime, we shot the same subject at the same time and processed them in the same software at the same time and the same way.
The different results were amazing, no matter what i did in post with sharpening etc i could not regain the lost IQ and detail
his lens captured even with less magnification than mine, and his pictures were like coming from a much better camera set up all round.
Like he said its in the glass not the magnification.
P.
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
You seem to have made up your mind about this no matter what we say. MegaPixels are MegaPixels and every time you crop you lose detail. In real world shooting your eyes can not tell the difference in 200mm and 300mm in the 70-300 zoom.
I just bought a 24-120 F4 lens to shoot on my D7100. It is a FX lens and on at DX camera I am only using the center section of the lens so it will be better. Standard shot without cropping I really can't see much difference in it and the 18-140 I was using as my walk around lens. Cropping it I probably will. The 24-120 costs $700 more than the 18-140
You are wanting a short cut to IQ and there just is not one.
I just bought a 24-120 F4 lens to shoot on my D7100. It is a FX lens and on at DX camera I am only using the center section of the lens so it will be better. Standard shot without cropping I really can't see much difference in it and the 18-140 I was using as my walk around lens. Cropping it I probably will. The 24-120 costs $700 more than the 18-140
You are wanting a short cut to IQ and there just is not one.
The problem is not your lens,i shoot 600mm a lot of the time,i can get a fantastic image of a small bird over say 30 foot away,if i point the same lens at a plane that high in the sky i will get a crap image,the pollution and heat will degrade my image beyond belief,yes a longer lens may improve it but not by any sensible amount.
I have been trying my lens out today at 220mm, first i micro focus adjusted it by dot focusing, then i took some pictures, here is one that has been cropped to 2287 x 1429 what is that just under two thirds the original size.
The grey heads where on a near by house about 200 feet away.
What do you think? at 300mm i was not seeing as much detail in the feathers.
P.
The grey heads where on a near by house about 200 feet away.
What do you think? at 300mm i was not seeing as much detail in the feathers.
P.
A very good point. Atmospheric conditions always come into play at very long ranges.
There's a limit to the amount of fine detail every lens can resolve and the farther the subject, the more a lens shows that limit. If you shoot a plane at 5 miles, you can't expect to see the hair on the nose of its pilot.
I had the 70-300mm but could out-shoot it with my 200mm macro simply because that lens does resolve fine detail better. Every sort of photography has its requirements and either you meet them or you don't and accept the limitations and try to work around them.
If the lens ain't long enough and you want that shot anyways; you gotto move closer yourself.
I had the 70-300mm but could out-shoot it with my 200mm macro simply because that lens does resolve fine detail better. Every sort of photography has its requirements and either you meet them or you don't and accept the limitations and try to work around them.
If the lens ain't long enough and you want that shot anyways; you gotto move closer yourself.
Last edited:
Folks i have spent the last 3 days doing some of my own testing of my lens at 220mm, and to get a fair comparison against my normal shooting at 300mm i chose the same planes under very similar conditions, and to my surprise and pleasure i have found All the shots at 220mm even viewed at 100% to be much sharper.
Even under some difficult conditions of high level cloud where the AF had grabbed the shot the pictures have turned out pin sharp with very good levels of detail let me give you an example of what i mean, one aircraft i shot from over 7 miles away without the proper pp work on my raw file, i can read cleanly the airline name on the tail of the plane when viewed at 100%(that is impressive).
So at 220mm and f8 i think this is definitely the best setting for the long end with this fine lens, and to beat this i think a prime would be needed.
P.
Even under some difficult conditions of high level cloud where the AF had grabbed the shot the pictures have turned out pin sharp with very good levels of detail let me give you an example of what i mean, one aircraft i shot from over 7 miles away without the proper pp work on my raw file, i can read cleanly the airline name on the tail of the plane when viewed at 100%(that is impressive).
So at 220mm and f8 i think this is definitely the best setting for the long end with this fine lens, and to beat this i think a prime would be needed.
P.