Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR Lens

[andy_fozzy]

Hi all.
Thinking of getting one of the subject lens.
Could anyone explain what the 'G' means?
I understand the rest, just the G!

TIA Andy

 

[jomike]

G means no aperture ring, aperture controlled by body in Nikonese.

See Nikon Glossary for more explanations of codes.

HTH

Mike

 

[andy_fozzy]

Thanks Mike, nice one.

Bit odd mind, as my 18-55 kit lens and 55-200 VR doesn't have an aperture ring, and there's no G in those!!!

Thanks again for the help.

 

[calypso69er]

Thinking about one of these as well. Anyone using them, that can give a bit of feedback?

 

[jomike]

Bit odd mind, as my 18-55 kit lens and 55-200 VR doesn't have an aperture ring, and there's no G in those!!!

My 18-55 kit lens says G on it (in the gold lettering), don't have the 55-200VR but I suspect it will say G on the lens as well. They don't always quote the full code in the literature as it becomes an alphabet soup.

I would love to get the 70-300VR for the VR, but finances say stick with my Sigma 70-300 APO and use a tripod

Mike

 

[Fozzybear]

I've got the 70-300VR and I really like it. The VR works well and the optics are pretty good - better than I'd hoped they would be. There are some photos taken with it on my flickr pages - I've tagged most of them which if you're interested can be found here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/tags/70300mmf4556gvr/

 

[andy_fozzy]

Ooh, just noticed my kit 18-55 DOES have the gold G
as does the 55-200 VR!!!

DERRRR



Cheers for the advice all, and cheers Fozzy for the examples (nice username btw...!!!)

 

[philaitman]

It's a stunning lens with excellent bang for buck appeal.
It's sharp and VR works very well.
Lots of examples here http://www.flickr.com/photos/philaitman/tags/70300vr/
A couple of examples below of it in use from wildlife to insect Macros

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/1214975569_e1ed5b1153_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1017/1214944263_d3476c5259_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1367/1215824018_fd8ae34420_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1439/1233088510_4358541d4b_b.jpg

 

[py6km]

That really is very much sharper than I had imagined it would be - excellent shots

 

[PaulBoy]

Its a cracking lens & has caused quite a stir amongst Nikon users with mega-expensive f2.8 VR lenses who can't believe a £300 lens can be so good
I took these two with mine (on a very windy day!)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/156/406865261_b64f81b07c_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/150/406922515_f01108ec1e_b.jpg

Paul

 

[CyBeRkId2002]

am quite amazed by those shots... had been considering a longer lens and was looking at the 2.8 options (cheaper 80-200 nikon and 70-200 sigma not the 70-200vr) but will now have to give this lens some serious consideration.

Thanks for the sample shots.

 

[CyBeRkId2002]

also, does anyone have any shots taken with this lens in low light situations. Am interested to see how the VR compares with a wider aperture.

 

[Yandros]

also, does anyone have any shots taken with this lens in low light situations. Am interested to see how the VR compares with a wider aperture.

Doing the math, a cropped 300mm lens needs ideally about 1/500th to ensure no camera shake. VR gains you about 3-4 stops, so that pulls it back to 1/60th. If your subject is stationary/slow moving (eg bird on branch), VR is going to be amazingly useful. However, if your subject is fast moving (eg sports, or bird in flight), you're going to need 1/500th or more anyway, so the VR is far less useful than say f2.8

 

[philaitman]

What Yandros Said

If you want to freeze fast moving action in low light then you need a faster wider aperture this isn't what VR is there to replace. If you just want low light/long focal length hand holding ability then VR does this very well.
If you have a steady hand you can get keepers and 300mm and 1/30th if the subject is still.