Any Downside To VR?

[laverephoto]

<p>I have observed that VR generally lives up to expectations when you are reducing hand shake on the part of the photographer. That was what it was designed to do and it does it. As for using it on a tripod, there is no point to using it on a tripod, and I have observed that the VR motor in my nikon 70-200 does indeed cause motion blur when you are mounted to a solid tripod and you will get better results on a tripod without VR. The observation I made was in a studio with very well controlled lighting and camera stability. I would take Nikon's recommendation on this one for sure.</p>

[laverephoto]

<p>I would also mention that I still carry a tripod, but I shoot weddings and I have been able to dramatically speed up my work with the family pictures and maintain good quality with the use of VR for all the bridal and family portraits in the church. I find that most photographers who shoot for a living (professionals) benefit greatly from minor technilogical conveniences like VR. In a competetive, fast paced environment convenience turns into necessity in the blink of an eye. Time is money and VR saves time.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Excellent example of the benefit of this technology, Sean. Very good stuff in your portfolio. You should add notes to those photos in the tech info section to clarify which were taken handheld using VR. With photo.net's new tagging system this would benefit other photographers looking for examples of the advantages to VR for handheld photography.</p>

[marlin_shulist]

<p>Calvin to address your query "Any Downside to VR". I did a comparison a few years back..... I ordered an AF70-200 VR f2.8 from B&H to shoot HS Hockey. I had already been shooting for a couple of years with an AF80-200ED f2.8 with good results but thought the VR would improve the product. What I found was that the photos were not as clear as the non VR lens. I attributed this to the behavior of the subject matter which was always in motion, advancing then receding, taking erratic turns and sometimes violent changes in direction. It seemed the VR lens was not able to track and zoom on the subject as well as the non VR. I returned the VR lens and have been quite happy with the non VR for shooting hockey. </p>

[seancrane]

<p>Hey Marlin,<br>

I shot with that same 80-200 for years before switching to the 70-200 VR version and have had no problems. In fact, the VR lens seems to focus a bit snappier than the 80-200 version, which I attributed to being a newer lens (this may or may not be true, but it certainly doesn't seem to focus any slower, track and zoom improperly or produce less sharp photos). Proper technique with VR requires that you engage the VR first for a beat by pressing the shutter halfway before firing. This is what I do anyway while acquiring focus on moving subjects. If shooting in continuous frames per second mode, the VR stays engaged throughout the range of shots while continuing to track the subject. As I stated earlier in this thread, VR isn't as important to certain styles of shooting but to others (like what I do with wildlife where a tripod isn't always practical and low light situations are often the norm) it makes all the difference in the world. And in situations where you don't need it you can just turn it off. The bokeh of this lens also seems to beat the older non VR versions, but that's another story.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>I own the 70-200 and 200-400 VR lenses. The thing to consider is durability in the field. I have never had a manual focus lens go down while on location, it is a pretty simple lens in terms of how it is built and the tolerances put into it. <br /> An AF lens however, I have had them become sloppy, AFS motors go and vibration take a toll. But if the AF motor goes on one of them, you can generally still focus it manually, exceptions being lenses like Canon's 85L. <br /> But if VR were to go and the VR element was in a not-so optically optimized position when it did, you could be out of luck on your trek in the Himalaya if you know what I mean.<br /> I think VR is great, but as a rule, I just don't want it in all my lenses as I don't know how much abuse that complex mechanism can take.<br /> Besides, I have a really steady hand..:-)</p>

[whoz_the_man_huh]

<p>Thanks for all the food for thought, everybody.</p>

<p>From the varying opinions derived from your bodies of experience, all vast, it seems this is an issue best decided by personal hands-on comparison. Now, how to get my hands on a 24-70mm F2.8 for a week or so...</p>

[larrybc]

<p>When VR is operating, it can also affect the bokeh of the lens. I believe it was Thom Hogan who had some bokeh samples with and without VR.</p>

<p>larsbc</p>

[marlin_shulist]

<p>Sean,<br>

You have raised some good points. At the time I did the test I was using a D70s, I now use a D300 which seems to have a bit more punch to the AF. I did test the VR in the different modes; tripod, hand held, VR-on, VR-off. When I shoot a hockey game I use a mono pod for support, watch the entire game with one eye open to the viewfinder and the other eye open to the out of frame action, finger on the shutter release, continuously acquiring focus, standing on a step ladder, lens just over the glass at the hash marks (just to the side of the goalie) firing 500 to 600 frames per game typically in 3-5 frame bursts. My comments reflect my experience shooting this particular sport using a VR and non VR lens. I concede, if I would have had the time to become more comfortable with the VR my shots may have improved. <br>

</p>

[osfania]

<p>One thing about stabilized lenses that is rarely talked about is the effect it has on non-prefessionals' buying preferences. They seems to think that VR/IS/OS is going to help them in low-light situations, and it does - to a point. But stabilization cannot add light to a scene. I would go for VR over non-VR, all other things being the same, but would never take an f/3.5-5.6 lens over an f/2.8 or faster lens. <br>

Having used both the 80-200/2.8 (3rd genereation) and the 70-200/2.8VR, I would have to say that I, too, prefer the VR, but use it sparingly. I also think that another reader may have been correct in saying that one of the reasons that <i>some</i> of the VR lenses are better than the lenses they replaced is owing to a newer formulation, including coatings.<br>

For me, it's primes over zooms, VR over non-VR, Zeiss über alles!</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>The startup time of the VR can be too slow for your purposes. If you want to shoot really fast the VR might not be online quick enough and might worsen your camera shake. (However this is a very short period of time of that most people need to compose anyway.)</p>

<p>Often stops before I have taken the shot. That irritates me.<br>

(I know this reduces battery consumption but I dislike it anyway.)</p>

<p>To be fair, I only know IS but I assume that VR is functionally identical...</p>

[seancrane]

<p>Hey Matthijs,<br>

Not sure of IS, but I know that with Nikon VR you can go into the menus and change the amount of time that the VR stays engaged prior to releasing the shutter. I too, like to keep it engaged for a while and use the longest setting. </p>

[heartyfisher]

<blockquote>

<p>The reason I posted this question is that, snapping vacation photos last week, I was forced by lighting conditions to shoot at F3.5 (max aperture) / ISO-1600 / 1/5 sec shutter speed. VR saved me.<br>

I'd like to confirm that in the same situation, had I been using a lens like "The Beast" (i.e., the renowned 24-70mm F2.8), I would've gotten significantly worse results. In other words, with poor lighting, gaining half a F-stop while losing VR would be a very bad trade. Correct assumption, yeah?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mostly correct but if you had a 24-70 f2.8 you would also be having a D3 and you could up the ISO on the d3 to 6400 and used 1/30 sec to get the shot. however. The gear would be costing 6 times more with less zoom range and would weigh twice as much. ;-) lol</p>