Is VR really needed for the 70-200mm/f2.8?

<p>Need a faster telephoto zoom for low-light conditions at events: Weddings, Parties etc...I shoot with a D300.</p>

<p>Looking into getting the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM to replace the kit 55-200 VR that came with my D40. The Sigma has great reviews it seems and its a bit hard for me to justify spending over 2x the cost for the Nikon 70-200 2.8 but I am really curious to know if the Sigma wouldn't get the job done in low light conditions where the Nikon with VR would...</p>

<p>Any help is appreciated!</p>

<p>Joe,</p>

<p>Given the scope of your question, the answer is absolutely.<br>

Generally you gain approx 3 to 4 stops advantage when hand holding over non-VR lenses.</p>

<p>Be aware that VR lenses are best suited to static subjects and will do nothing to prevent image blur from moving subjects.</p>

<p>For weddings they are a great help when using slower shutter speeds and flash when the goal is to capture ambient background light.</p>

<p>VR has saved the day more than once for many photographers.<br>

That saving comes at a price obviously.</p>

<p>For fast moving subjects, no. Otherwise, yes. VR comes in handy for wedding ceremonies, when you either can't or don't want to use a tripod/monopod.</p>

<p>Wow, didn't realize a full 3 or 4 stops...</p>

<p>I have been second shooting with a local pro who uses the Sigma on her D3 but I guess on the D3 she can get away with running ISO all the way to 2400 no problem, which is about double what I like to use...</p>

<p>Love my 16-85mm VR zoom lens. I couldn't get the results I get with it without a tripod otherwise. And traveling through a crowded city with a tripod isn't my first choice. I can routinely get sharp results handheld at 1/30 second with it.</p>

<p>If you shoot weddings and events with a 70-200mm/f2.8, VR is a major plus. In fact, the only VR lens I use regularly with the VR feature is precisely the 70-200, which I upgraded from the older 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S. With VR. I can routinely hand hold it at 200mm and get vibration-free results at 1/60 sec or perhaps 1/30 sec in most situations. I would say I gain 2 to 3 stops of shutter speed.</p>

<p>Subject movement is of course a separate issue.</p>

<p>I'd advise the 70-200VR if you can save for it. I've used it once at a concert, D200, F2.8, 1/30s, iso1600 @ 200mm kind of thing. Decent for 8x10 :) Mind you, I had to time my shots so that the performers were relatively still.<br>

Even in normal day to day use in lowish light, the ability to shoot at low speeds at lower isos is a godsend.<br>

One thing I've observed is that vr actually adds a very slight softness if used at high shutter speeds. On my 70-300vr, I can notice it (on static subjects) that vr off is slightly better at higher shutter speeds.<br>

Alvin</p>

<p>I use the 70-200/2.8 VR for a lot of sports/action type stuff where the VR isn't necessarily meaningful... but I also find myself bringing it out for other types of shooting where the VR is the difference between getting the shot, or not. I've frequently hand-held 200mm shots at 1/8th of a second, and it's VR to the rescue. 1/8th is pushing it, but with some practice 1/15th is surprisingly do-able. Routine, even. As Shun mentions above, you don't even think twice about 1/30th.<br /><br />But is it necessary? Not as necessary as a shorter, faster prime, or a good couple of speedlights, or a backup camera body if you're shooting weddings. But if you've got that ground covered, an f/2.8 zoom with VR is a hell of a tool to have in your bag.</p>

<p>Joe, I would agree 100% with Shun and the others above. The VR makes a big difference when handholding longer lenses at lower shutter speeds. I have noticed this quite a bit on my 80-400 mm VR...even though it's Nikon's first VR design, it still helps. Get the Nikkor 70-200 VR.<br>

Dick</p>

<p>1/30 is my limit for hand holding at 200mm with VR. At anything slower, even VR is not going to perform miracles, but the bigger problem is that you will likely get some subject movement so that regardless of how great VR is, you will still get unacceptable results.</p>

<p>You can use the most sturdy tripod or bolt your camera on concrete; subject movement will be the issue from 1/15 sec and slower. If the subject is walking or moving, you'll need 1/100 sec or 1/200 sec. So VR still has a lot of limitations.</p>

<p>VR can even be helpful with lighter weight lenses. When I got my D2H in 2005 I was still recovering from a car wreck, occasionally walked with a cane and had shaky hands some days. The 24-120 VR was a big help for a couple of years when I got some motion blur from my own mitts even at 1/1000th sec.</p>

<p>I was convinced after trying the 70-200/2.8 VR against the 80-200/2.8 AF in a local shop. There was no way I could handhold the 80-200/2.8 AF steadily enough to use reliably at less than 1/1000th sec. With the VR version, as well as the 80-400 VR, I could handhold down to 1/250th when panning with action, and down to 1/15th sec on motionless subjects. (I don't own either of the VR tele zooms, since I can rent locally when I need 'em.)</p>

<p>Any kind of anti-shake technology is one of the best innovations of the past 100 years for handheld photography.</p>

<p>Joe the 70-200 is the only VR lens I own and need. This zoom range and VR are a perfect match.</p>

<p>The Sigma is a nice zoom and good IQ and value for the money. IQ is close to the Nikkor but no match :-)</p>

<p>The IQ in the center of the 70-200 Nikkor is amazing. This is what many like. The very edges are a bit weak and draw a lot of criticism. For my use that is not important. Others prefer a more even IQ and if no VR is needed the older 80-200 Nikkor is the best choice. This lens is almost as good as the 70-200 in the center. It is also a lot cheaper.</p>

<p>Here in our local club I heard of a lot of sample variation in Sigma lenses. So if you buy a Sigma you might prefer to get a lens from a dealer with good support. The built quality does not match the Nikkor lenses but is OK for a lot of use when things get not too rough.</p>

 

<p>I did not buy the 70-200 f/2.8 for its VR. I did buy it for its AFS motors. I still own my Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8. I got the 70-200mm for its AF speed. VR has not made a noticeable difference in how slow I can handhold the lens. Lets state up front that the VR is not the same as having a lens 3-4 f/stops faster. It in theory allows you to hand hold at slower shutter speeds. VR does help but I do not agree with the 3-4 f/stops. In many ways I view VR as a Placebo for photographers.<br /> In terms of Sigma or Nikon if you can afford the Nikon I would go with them. You have better build quality of the lens, better repair services and compatibility. With third party lenses you may need to rechip them if Nikon creates a new camera.<br>

I do not own any sigma lenses but I do own a Tokina 300mm f/2.8 and a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8. I have used these lenses for over 10 years now with no complaint.</p>

<p>I certainly appreciate all the responses thus far. I have the Sigma 18-50 mm 2.8 which I love and originally thought the 70-200 2.8 would be just as good of a fit, but now looks like I may have to reconsider and fork out the big bucks for the Nikon. Even with a speedlight, some of the wedding receptions are pretty dark and the VR would definitely be a help.</p>

<p>I find VR to be very useful in dimly lit spaces like churches. I can shoot at 1/30th of a second with the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR G and 1.4x teleconverter, and unless the person is moving rapidly, but photos are always sharp. Without VR, I'd have to shoot these images at at least 1/250th of a second in order to nullify the effect of camera shake. VR is your friend.</p>

<p>The currrent issue (july) of Pop Photo has a write-up on the 70-200 Nikkor. Not surprisingly, they give it high marks.</p>

<p>I have, use and prefer my AF-S 80-200mm but I use it mostly for sports/action. For your purposes, I think VR would likely be a significant plus. You are likely to be grateful for the VR assist long after you've forgotten the extra cash.</p>

<p>I own the D300 and the Sigma. If you can save up for the Nikon. If you need it right away then I will recommend the Sigma. Practice with the lens to get used to the weight.. Do you have the battery grip for the D300?</p>

<p>Joe, the new Sigma 70-200 received an excellent review but there are more differences than VR between it and the Nikon version....</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0806/08061602tamron70200review.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0806/08061602tamron70200review.asp</a></p>

<p>Nevertheless, the Sigma looks like a great option for those on a tighter budget, especially if it can be used with a tripod or monopod. Both of these lenses are a bit chunky at over 3 lbs.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"In many ways I view VR as a Placebo for photographers."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So did I, Ralph. Until I was hit head-on at highway speeds, cracking six vertebrae in my back and neck. Things change. So did my opinion of IS/VR and similar technologies.</p>

<p>VR definitely helps but I am in your camp. I can't justify paying over 2x as much to get it. The Sigma 70-200 HSM is tough to beat for $749.00</p>

<p>I might get some flack for this but I think this is going to be my game-plan for the time being...</p>

<p>Buy the Sigma which I should be OK with for the most part except for the darker places. For the darker places I can buy (which I was planning on anyway) a Nikon 50 mm 1.8 and zoom with my legs, but have the faster aperture to get me by when the Sigma won't cut it. On places where I know are exceptionally dark I will just rent one of the Nikon VRs to use for the day.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I opted to get the Nikon 180 f/2.8 rather than the 70-200 VR zoom because I rather like primes and I'd read such great things about it. I have to say, while it makes extraordinary pictures, it can be quite challenging to use. I don't have any hand tremor, but I do have inexperience at shooting long lenses handheld (I suppose this lens will give me the experience, though...).</p>

<p>What I've noticed is that even in the bright sun where shutter speeds are more than fast enough to counteract any hand shake, it can still be difficult to wield the lens. This is because hand shake makes framing difficult, too. VR not only helps stabilize your images; it also helps stabilize what you see in the viewfinder, making it easier to frame and focus.</p>

<p>Since you already have the 55-200 VR, try setting it to 200mm, turning the VR off, and using it that way for an extended outing. See if you can get a decent number of clear shots handheld (make sure your shutter speed is at least 1/200). See if you have any difficulties framing and focusing. Then you can decide if the VR feature alone is worth enough to you to justify the price.</p>

<p>I don't have any A to B tests with and without the VR feature, but I think it works. I have a very unsteady hand, but I was recently able to get quite a few sharp-enough-for-me shots handholding the 70-200 in a dark convention hall.</p>

<p>Example with EXIF: <a href="http://www.wingedmammal.com/e3_2009/e3_2009_DSC_8205.shtml">http://www.wingedmammal.com/e3_2009/e3_2009_DSC_8205.shtml</a><br>

Pixel peep version: <a href="http://www.wingedmammal.com/action_photos_2009/DSC_8205-full-res.jpg">http://www.wingedmammal.com/action_photos_2009/DSC_8205-full-res.jpg</a><br>

Many shots with VR and low shutter speeds: <a href="http://www.wingedmammal.com/e3_2009/e3_2009.shtml">http://www.wingedmammal.com/e3_2009/e3_2009.shtml</a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In many ways I view VR as a Placebo for photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A placebo? Do you mean that they think that it makes them better but it really has no effect? I was reading some John Shaw quotes on the Nikon website the other day. In the past, Mr. Shaw stated that he rarely takes a serious photo without the use of a tripod. Yet, now with VR, he's taking many successful more handheld shots. Somehow, I can't imagine John Shaw falling for a placebo effect.</p>

<p>Autofocus is definitely a placebo candidate. It makes people think that they're in focus when they're actually focusing on someone's belt buckle. Auto-exposure, especially when combined with LCD screens and histograms - yep, there's definitely placebo potential there. Auto white balance is a another one. How many photographers today understand the color of light and the creative aspects of color correction (or non-correction)? Every automated feature has the potential to give photographers a false sense of security. I wouldn't single VR out as a particularly disagreeable culprit. In cases where it doesn't improve the image, the results are clear to see, even by a novice. I don't think VR is fooling anyone. It's a tool, and it works surprisingly well in some cases, and somewhat poorly in others.</p>