Nikons 70-300 AFS VR
Is it any good?
text and photography: Ronno Tramper
Being the owner of a Nikkor 80-400 VR (non AFS, over three lbs or 1.5 kg heavy) I was looking forward to laying my hands on Nikons new 70-300 VR (AFS and only half the weight of the 80-400). A light weight 300 mm tele with fast autofocus and VR and the versatile zoom range of 70-300 all in one lens had been on my wish list for a long time. I suppose many photographers out there are at least tempted to exchange the bulky 80-400 (with all its limitations) for this 70-300 VR. Is it a good idea? The answer is of course that it depends on your particular needs. I had the opportunity to test them side by side and decided not to buy it. Note: both the 70-300 VR and the 80-400 VR are full frame lenses, meaning they will also work on film SLRs and on full frame DSLRs.
the good news
Let's start with the good news. Autofocus on Nikons new 70-300 VR is very fast and accurate. It beats the 80-400 hands down. VR works fine, but despite the fact that the 70-300 has more options for finetuning its performance, I did not notice much difference in practice. I took bursts of three exposures with VR and AF on of a non moving subject (approx. 1/20 sec. at f11). Most of the time all three of them were sharp, although occasionally the 80-400 had a soft exposure. Probably due to the interaction between AF and VR.
Optical performance (sharpness, contrast, CA) in the 70-200 range is fine. Very good I would say, but certainly not better than the 80-400 in the same range. So if you want a light weight, high quality 70-200 lens, with fast AF and VR and you will only occasionally zoom out to 300 mm, you should consider buying it. Although you have to ask yourself if buying the 18-200 VR would not be a better option in that case. Carrying around a 70-300 usually means that you will also be carrying around an 18-70 and maybe a wide angle zoom such as a 12-24. And you only accept the burden of an extra lens and changing lenses all the time if you absolutely want the 300 mm (what other reason could you have?).
the basic question
So for me the basic question is: is this 70-300 VR any good at 300 mm? For that reason I compared it to the 80-400 VR at 300 mm. I was in for a nasty surprise. Optically the 70-300 at 300 mm is absolutely no match for the 80-400.
sharpness
At f5.6 and 300 mm the 70-300 is reasonably sharp in the center and hopelessly bad in the corner. Surprisingly, stopping down to f11 does not change this all that much. The 80-400 at 5.6 and 310 mm (310 is what my Bibble raw converter said) was very good in the center and very good in the corner as well. The difference with the 70-300 is immense! Also notice the difference in contrast. Stopping down to f11 the 80-400 remains very good. But stopping down the 80-400 to improve the performance is certainly not necessary. Using the 70-300mm on a full frame (FX) DSLR or on a film SLR like teh Nikon F100 or F5 will probably worsen the situation. If the corners are this unsharp on the small DX-sensor, that means that on a larger sensor a much larger part of the frame will probably be unsharp. To be fair, it has to be said that the 80-400 at focal lengths over 320mm is rather soft in the corners too. Below are 100% crops, so you can judge for yourself. The specs: D200 raw files, converted in Bibble 4.10 and exported as 100% tif. Standard sharpening of the raw converter (very little). Auto levels, no addional sharpening after conversion. I used a tripod, cable release and raised the mirror in advance. VR was switched off.
70-300 @5.6/300mm center
80-400 @5.6/310mm center
70-300 @5.6/300mm corner
80-400 @5.6/310mm corner
70-300 @11/300mm center
80-400 @11/310mm center
70-300 @11/300mm corner
80-400 @11/310mm corner
Chromatic Abberation
In addition the 70-300 at 300mm suffers from some blue-yellow chromatic abberation (CA), even near the center. The 80-400 at 300mm has just a little bit of red-cyan chromatic abberation. If you don't know what CA is, look for the colorfringes on the large MET in the images above and compare it with the ones below. I have to say that the subject, a sharp transition from black to white, does provoke the CA. In normal images you would hardly see this. I also think that in the digital era this should no longer be considered a big problem. Most raw conversion software programs will make all but the worst CA disappear almost without a trace. Nikons recent D-SLR's will also miraculously filter out the chromatic abberation from their jpeg output. With older camera bodies and on film of course it can still be a problem. Below you can see how well Bibble Pro helped me to get rid of the chromatic abberation. If you leave the CA as it is, it does affect sharpness and colors of course.
70-300 @11/300mm center
CA corrected
80-400 @11/310mm center
CA corrected
what does it mean? Simulating an 8 x 12 inch print.
Of course, you may ask what the value of all this in real life is. Most of us do no shoot newspapers attached to a wall (at least not all the time I hope). Would you notice the difference in case of a picture that has a bird in the center and nothing in the corners that's supposed to be sharp anyway? You certainly would if you print it bigger than 8 x 12 inches. I don't think the quality of the 70-300 at 300mm is high enough for a spread in a magazine or a 13 x 19 inch inkjet print. It's too soft for that. There is however one caveat: I think your chances of getting the shot of a moving bird in between the branches of a tree is slightly bigger with the 70-300 VR because of its better AF. Below are two more examples from the corner of the test-image. The original file was 2600 x 3900 pixels (a little over 8 x 12 inches at 300 PPI). First the 100% image was sharpened using unsharp mask, then down sampled to 50% and subsequently the down sampled image was slightly sharpened again. As a rule of thumb this gives you a reasonably good idea what an 8 x 12 inch inkjet print would look like.
70-300 @11/300mm corner
8 x 12 print simulation
80-400 @11/310mm corner
8 x 12 print simulation
conclusion
As you can see from the last two examples the 70-300 VR is not a very bad lens. But if you like to see sharp pictures at 100% and if you already own the 80-400 VR and regularly take pictures at around 300 mm or more, keep the 80-400 VR. For landscape photography and subjects that are not moving fast it is a much better lens. Wait till Nikon comes with an improved 80-400 AFS VR (but will they ever?).