August 5th 16, 04:07 PM
posted to rec.photo.digital
|
|
Fuji's XF 100-400mm zoom beats Nikon's 300mm f/4.0 VR prime.
On 8/4/2016 6:22 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Fri, 05 Aug 2016 09:44:59 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:
On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:43:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-08-04 14:53:08 +0000, PeterN said:
On 8/3/2016 4:56 PM, RichA wrote:
I saw it in a magazine, a convincing win for the Fuji despite the fact
it was a zoom against a prime lens. Nikon's earlier 300mm lenses can
be had for half the price, but are not recommended as they have no VR.
Both Fuji and Nikon run about $2000.00.
If you're shooing birds at high speeds, VR only slows things down. I
find I get better focus tracking without VR.
Has that actually been documented by anybody, other than with your
personal experience?
...or is that some sort of unverified speculation?
VR/OS was on for this shot.
https://db.tt/FChe5Y5t
See https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33448760 for comments on the
effect of VR on focussing.
From 2009.
In http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm Thom Hogan explains why VR
should be switched off unless you actually need it.
From 2010.
And another explanation
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/...d-when-turn-it
or http://tinyurl.com/pvvubgh
Don't know when that's from, but things have certainly progressed
since 2010, plus that Hogan character seems like a bit of a flake, at
least on a quick read. I could be wrong about that, though.
He is a highly respected source of Nikon information, despite what
nospam says.
--
PeterN
|