It was dawn. While many people were just waking up early on Christmas morning, anxiously untying ribbons, and removing bows from their new Nikon 70-300mm VR zooms -- this yuletide review was just wrapping itself up. After one and a half weeks of repetitive testing, twas time to let new owners know whether it was naughty or nice ...

Why?

Why use this zoom? Every lens serves a purpose, and some lenses fit a purpose much better than others. For me, this type of zoom has always been an ideal choice for photographing landscapes and slow moving subjects. It's relatively light weight (745g) makes it a natural choice to take along hiking, whether climbing Mt. Whitney, photographing compressed sunsets, or stalking Big Horn sheep in the Anza Borrego desert. It's also a fine choice for photographing amongst tight elbows -- such as those you find in sports arenas, concerts, news conferences, zoos -- really anywhere one might expect a crowd at their side.

This newer version is 1/3 of a stop slower than it's predecessor, but has some interesting enhancements. For one, the new optic formula sports 17 lens elements in 12 groups. It's also been fitted with a weather sealed gasket, VR II (vibration reduction technology ), AF-S (high speed silent wave autofocus), and a very welcome surprise -- the return of an infrared focusing marker to compensate for differences in the plane of infrared focus. Infrared photography has been making a popular comeback of late, and it's interesting that this has not escaped Nikon's attention. More on this later...

Any thorough evaluation requires meticulous and repetitive testing. Even under the best of circumstances, sample deviation, random chance, subject matter, and environmental influences can alter the results. With so many variables for this lens, there is bound to be some conflicting data. My goal was to provide the reader with a sampling of this lens across it's spectrum of possibilities, tailored to my purpose, and demonstrate how it compared with Nikon's competitive alternatives. Is this the right lens for you? Read on and you may be pleasantly surprised.

What?

What purpose does this lens serve? Is it constrained by it's 4.3:1 focal length, or can it be pressed into extended service with a tele-converter? How does it perform up-close? How does it perform afar? What are it's real life limitations. What are it's strengths? These are some of the questions I sought to answer.

How?

To determine the why and the what, this new Nikon 70-300mm AFS ED VR must be compared with the previous 70-300mm AF ED offering, as well as Nikon's top of the line 300mm AF-S ED prime.

Left to right: Nikon 300mm f/4 ED AF-S; Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR; Nikon 70-300mm F4-5.6 ED

It will also be tested with a modified version of Nikon's TC14E (1.4x) as well as the Kenko Pro 300 TC (1.4x). I will try to determine if Nikon's VR II technology effectively eliminates blur from camera movement due to hand shake . We will see how it performs on a tripod, and how it performs hand held. It will be tested at both slow and fast shutter speeds. All photographs were recorded in NEF format, and have had no additional sharpening except for the ambient kind that occurrs through size reduction and conversion to JPEGs. I would expect a significant improvement using a sound post-processing workflow.

Initial Observations

Upon handling this new zoom, it's immediately evident how much larger and heavier than it's predecessor --the 70-300mm ED AF -- it is. It now sports an exotic 17 elements in 12 groups, weighs 230g more (approx. half a pound), and requires a 67mm filter mount over the previous model's 62mm. This is a true G model lens. That means it has no aperture ring and is not suitable for older cameras without a cpu (computer procesing unit). While physically larger in size, it's also 1/3 of a stop slower. Engineered with AF-S (silent wave auto-focus), this lens promises to focus it's targeted subjects much quicker and with less hunting than it's AF predecessor. Also, the VR should be of some benefit as neither of the 70-300mm zoom models sport a tripod collar. In theory, one expects this to handicap both lenses -- especially at their longest focal length (300mm) and especially when a TC (teleconverter) is added (420mm).

The older 70-300mm ED AF was a reliable performer when given the chance. It's optical qualities became progressively weaker between 240-300mm. My feeling is that this was partially due to limitations in it's optical design, but also partially due to limitations in it's AF (auto-focus) capabilities. Starting with a blank slate, and testing only for optical performance -- all things being equal, I secured the older model onto a rigid tripod and chose a target estimated to be about 550 meters (1/3 of a mile) away. To help profile the performance of the older lens at various focal lengths, the target was photographed at 70mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 240mm, and 300mm:

70mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 240mm, and 300mm.

These photos were taken in conjunction with my IR (infrared) tests (see below), and were therefore photographed with a D70 camera and a consistant aperture of f/8. Why f/8? Theoretically, this aperture is the sweet spot on most lenses, and in any case remains fixed when comparing zooms with varying maximum apertures.

The following 100% crops taken from the center, are shown at each focal length:

70mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 240mm, and 300mm.

Not too bad, but note how the optical resolution of the older zoom begins to regress at the longer focal lengths. Compare this to the same perspective and focal lengths taken with the new 70-300mm VR lens. In order to compare apples with apples, VR (vibration reduction) was turned off:

70mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 240mm, and 300mm.

Now the 100% crops:

70mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 240mm, and 300mm.

Excellent. Indeed, by the time the focal length of this zoom reaches 200mm, it's superiority is unquestionable. Unlike the older zoom, the new optics are sharp over it's entire focal range. Be that as it may, I'm not completely convinced the older zoom is a slouch, as I've been able to capture much sharper images focusing manually with cameras that had a bigger viewfinder. Still, apples to apples, the new 70-300mm VR appears to outshine it's predecessor in this test.

Real World

How does this translate into real world performance? Photographers will look at the price/performance ratio of this lens, and wonder whether it might be substituted in place of Nikon's other professional offerings. After all, who wants to take a big heavy lens with them on a safari? Well not so fast ...

The following test was designed to compare and baseline the resolving power of the 70-300mm VR at 300mm over the entire frame. It's therefore compared to it's predecessor, in addition to Nikon's 300mm f/4 professional prime lens. Photos were taken with a fixed aperture of f/8, no tripod support, relying only on the qualities of the lens and/or good technique (which is a real world variable). The next target is estimated to be 415 meters (1/4 of a mile) away. This time using a D200, the center of focus was placed on the text above the doorway smack in the center of the frame. VR was turned back on with the new lens, as theoretically it should provide a real-world advantage when hand holding at slower speeds.

With VR engaged, the 70-300mm VR appears to be only a smidgeon sharper in the center, but take a look at the edge of the frame. Edge sharpness appears much sharper than it's predecessor. Compare this to Nikon's 300mm f/4 AF-S prime:

As the crops show, the 300mm f/4 ED prime is really one fine piece of glass. It easily out resolves the sharpness and contrast of either zoom -- which is to be expected. The question is not whether the 70-300mm VR is good in comparison, but whether it's good enough for your purposes. In many cases it will be, but certainly not in every case. Which goes back to every lens has it's purpose.

During these tests, I felt VR to be somewhat inconsistant and therefore feel it does not substitute for good technique. What technique is that? Well, for one, either a monopod or other platform (sandbag, beanbag, etc) might easily enhance the number of keepers -- even with VR turned on.

In order to push the envelope of this new zoom, the next set of photos show what might be expected if a TC were applied. Nikon doesn't recommend a TC, nor will any of Nikon's current models fit. However TC's can be modified to fit -- or a third party TC can be used. Even with a 1.4x TC mounted, the lens extension is well under 250g/m and should thus perform well on a tripod.

The first series in the next set show results when used with a Kenko TC (1.4x). This TC can be used with either the older or newer zooms. The folowing series shows the results of a specially modified Nikon TC14E (1.4x) -- but only on the newer 70-300mm VR and the 300mm f/4 ED prime. The modified Nikon TC will not physically fit onto the older 70-300m ED zoom, and if forced will damage the older zoom and/or converter.

Beneath each full frame are 100% crops of the center and edge targets:

Using a TC on either 70-300mm zoom (older and newer) clearly shows results at 300mm to be a bit soft. Compared to the 300mm prime, I thought the contrast and resolution below my baseline expectations for shooting at 420mm. Still, the performance might be "good enough" for the trade-offs in size, weight, and price to stand well enough on it's own. For subjects at a greater distance, such as on a safari, the 300mm prime +TC will still deliver a superior resolution. However, in your real world, should the additional weight, cost, and accompanying support (tripod or monopod) prove burdensome -- the 70-300mm VR might prove a most effective alternative.

VR (vibration reduction)

When can it help and when can it not? Nikon's vibration reduction (VR), like Canon's image stabilization (IS), is a helpful technology for steadying hands. It's much more important for telephotos than it is for wide angle or regular focal lengths. However, VR does not prevent blurring of a subject if the subject moves at a pace that's faster than the shutter speed needed to freeze it. Fast cars, animals, people running -- all benefit from higher shutter speeds and/or panning techniques more than VR. VR, in theory, frees one from a monopod or tripod, but in practice is not always 100% effective nor consistent. VR can still be of benefit when used on a monopod or sand/bean bag where the lens is held a still as possible -- kicking in when depressing the shutter button to neutralize one's natural hand movements.

The photo above photo demonstrates when VR will not steady a subject. With a focal length of 420mm (300mm + 1.4xTC) this lens require a very fast shutter speed to freeze any rapidly moving subject. Even with VR turned on, the subject was moving too quickly to be completely frozen by the 1/125th second shutter speed. However, blur may sometimes be desirable as it helps emphasize motion -- as illustrated by the helicopter blades.

The above image shows how VR might work under ideal circumstances. The 100% crop shows how much detail can be captured with this lens, to the extent that the brand of water can be determined at well over 100 feet (33m) away. In this instance, the inclined subject was moving fairly slowly, and with plenty of available light, VR helped to capture a sharp image at 300mm f/8 using only 1/180th second shutter speed.

How did VR on the new 70-300mm handle a set of sequenced focal lengths?

As shown above, at a distance of 1.5m (4.9 feet), using relatively slow shutter speeds, VR worked in a majority of circumstances, but failed to eliminate blur in at least one case. In general, the performance was good enough but it wasn't 100% consistent. This was a consistant conclusion over multiple and repetitive tests. In light of this, VR should still be used in conjunction with other good techniques.

At this time, I have insufficent data to comment on whether VR II performs better than VR I. Empirically, all I can add is that with VR turned on with the new 70-300mm VR lens, I have a very similar number of keepers and discards as with VR turned on using my 70-200mm f2.8 VR zoom. Caveat VR.

Up Close

In addition to the superior resolving power demonstrated over it's predecessor, and any perceived benefits of VR, this new zoom focuses to a very close distance of 1.5 meters at all focal lengths. The following photographs, taken once again with a D200, demonstrate the close-up potential for this lens.

Yes -- the dragonfly is slightly out of focus, but simply reinforces the point that AF and VR are still no substitute for good technique -- especially with extreme close-ups. However, be that as it may, the detail captured --even though handheld -- is still outstanding and suggests greater potential when appropriately secured to a tripod or laid to rest on a bean bag and manually focused.

This next series were also handheld at an oblique angle, 300mm focal length, and the minimum 1.5m (4.9 feet) distance. With a shutter speed of only 1/30 sec, VR worked it's magic -- both with and without the Kenko 1.4x TC.

Showing detail at 100% crops reinforces the point that "near focus" will resolve very fine details -- details that can even be further enhanced if teased out from the raw data and sound post processing techniques are practiced. It's somewhat regretable that this lens does not have a built in tripod collar, as it appears to have a remarkable ability to resolve details at near distances. However, one lens can't be everything to everybody, and how one works around these issues is really left up to the style and intentions of the photographer.

OOF (also known as boke or bokeh)

A lens will render any light that passes through it in the pattern or shape of an object, or it's container, along it's focal path. Just like a cookie cutter, objects in front of the focusing element will take on the shape of an object that's cutting the light. This is most evident with highlights, and can lead to a number of patterned vignettes. Sometimes, a photographer will place a cut-out heart or diamond pattern in a filter holder so that when the lens is stopped down, it appears to cut the light in a shape favorable to those hearty newlyweds. Love it or hate it, it's a property of physics. Likewise, the out of focus (OOF) artifacts are susceptible to taking on the shape of the aperture, or in the case of a mirror lens it's reflective internal mirror. In general, there is a desire to neutralize these patterns as they distract from the subject matter. Generally, the coarser (fewer) the aperture blades, the coarser the OOF area. Therefore there has been a lot of interest, of late, in lenses which show a soft or smooth OOF rendition.

The way apertures are built, the more blades that bring it closer to a circle shape -- the softer the OOF area. Nikon has paid heed to these concerns with the new 70-300mm VR. This lens employs 9 aperture blades to give a very smooth OOF rendition. People who crave smoother OOF areas will very much gravitate to this lens.

How smooth? In order to test for this feature, the aperture should be as wide open as possible as to narrow the depth of field. Subjects should be close to the lens so that the background artifacts are allowed to blur. The following sequence of shots were taken wide open with the main subject a very close 1.5m from the lens:

As there was no midground behind the subject, the OOF rendition appears very smooth at all focal lengths: 70mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 240mm, 300mm. This is a good method for isolating the subject matter from the background. Another test would be to insert a midground with specular highlights as in the following series -- also taken at the minimum 1.5m focusing distance to exaggerate the OOF effect:

This kind of test is a very harsh one for judging the OOF rendition as specular highlights can't help but distract from the subject matter. Still, the background is relatively soft for an f/4.5 aperture at 70mm and 100mm. At 135mm onward, the OOF rendition is phenomenally smooth. Although the OOF quality is very subjective, this lens does an excellent job matching the criteria of neutralizing distracting patterns from the subject matter.

Infrared

Sometimes, with the serendipitous exploration of software, one may find a hidden bonus called an "easter egg." Likewise, this lens also has a bonus "easter egg" in the form of it's surprisingly strong IR (infrared) performance. After long neglecting this facet of photography, it appears Nikon has paid heed to the strong re-emergence of interest in this art form and science.

The 70-300mm ED AFS VR sports the return of an infrared focusing marker on it's barrel. Unusually, it's marked for focal lengths rather than focusing distance, however the lens can be manually adjusted to compensate for it's focal range to bring the IR part of the spectrum into sharp focus.

In order to understand how well this lens performs under IR light, one needs to compare it to it's predecessor. Once again, these tests were conducted using a Nikon D70 -- which, due to it's weak anti-aliasing filter, does a fairly good job of recording infrared light. Furthermore, as to isolate a strong infrared response, a Hoya RM90 filter was used so as to reduce and eliminate most wavelengths under 900nm .

As exposure times can be relatively long with such an opaque filter, it was necessary to conduct this test using a tripod. Once again a fixed aperture of f/8 was chosen to eliminate variances due to focal length. One problem remained in that the older 70-300mm ED, unlike the newer version, had no offset markers to compensate for the IR shift in focus. Rather than proceeding with a lengthy trial and error approach, I decided to let the autofocus system of the camera work with the IR transmission properties of the lens. As the older AF system was not as reliable as the newer AF-S model, I zeroed the lens manually at infinity on both models and then turned AF on hoping to let the transmission properties of the lens drive the technology. Here is the first set of photos taken with the older 70-300mm ED AF at 70mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 240mm, and 300mm:

Taking a 100% crop of the center portions of the frame revealed these details:

At higher magnifications, it became evident that not enough IR light was being transmitted to trigger the AF mechanism. Indeed, even at infinity focus and an f/8 aperture, it appeared that IR was leaking, as opposed to focusing, onto the sensor as it was not being sharply resolved. Now the same set of photos taken with the new 70-300mm VR:

Taking the same 100% crop of the center portions of the frame revealed these details:

The 100% crops clearly speak for themselves. What was even more remarkable -- even through a nearly opaque filter, was the AF-S system auto-compensated to match the corresponding IR markings on the lens. It seems the purity of IR light transmitted through this lens is high enough to let the AF-S technology determine the plane of sharpest focus. This is a feat I have not, so far, been able to replicate with other AF-S lenses. It also begs one to ask why such a fine performance? Is this simply the serendipitous outcome of a superior optic design, or is Nikon flirting with the intentions of re-entering into this field in a more substantial manner? Whatever the reason, this new 70-300mm VR appears to be a good candidate for a more in depth exploration of this subject.

Conclusions

I deliberately chose not to compare the boxes these lenses came in. Instead I chose to emphasize purpose. From these initial tests, it appears that the 70-300mm VR promises to be a much more powerful performer than it's predecessor. It's optical performance is outstanding across the full frame and only eclipsed by the twice as expensive and less agile 300mm Nikon prime. AF-S virtually eliminates the AF hunting exhibited with the previous 70-300mm zoom, and VR, when engaged generally improves hand held shots at slower shutter speeds. OOF rendition is outstanding.

This lens is what it is. Each lens exhibits it's own strengths and weaknesses, but must be measured according to it's intended purpose. For me, this zoom is an ideal choice for photographing landscapes, performances, slower moving people and wildlife -- near or afar. It's easy to carry it around and it will replace my prime in situations that require greater mobility and agility. As a bonus, it can be fitted with a 1.4x TC (Kenko or modified TC14E) and will still provide acceptable results throughout most of it's range. For those of us who enjoy "easter eggs", it also promises outstanding potential for IR photography. Is it worth the two hundred dollar premium over it's predecessor? It depends on your own shooting style and requirements, but I know I will certainly benefit from this new lens for those times I can't bring my bigger and heavier gear with me.

Naughty or nice? My recommendation is not to walk -- but run, surf, ski, swim, or skate to your local Nikon dealer and pick one up. This lens appears to be a most excellent performer for it's price point, and a worthwhile addition for those with a true purpose for this lens.

The author of this article can be contacted at filmlives.net.