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

[douglasely]

<p>Ditto Lex, similar story.</p>

<p>VR works very well. </p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>Lex you are the second person to have brought that point to my attention. Scott Bourne and I chatted about VR and he brought up a similar point. With medical conditions I do see your point. One of the reasons I shoot a D3 is for the Viewfinder, because I have some retina damage. A viewfinder like a D70s is harder for me to use. I agree it helps with body movement but 3-4 f/stops I do not buy.</p>

<p>Dan you have to understand, I find tripods extremely impractical. I have not owned one for still photography for 15 years. I have not used one since I stop shooting 4X5. I mainly shoot people (I couldn't shoot nature, or landscapes if my life depended on it) so tripods are completely impractical in my line of work. As for hand holding a 70-200mm f/2.8 I can do it about 1/8-1/10 comfortably but I come from the F2 days.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>One thing I really dislike are those "zoom with your feet" comments. It really doesn't make any sense. Frequently you cannot get closer, perhaps because you don't have time or you don't have space. It can be dangerous to get too close if it is a wild animal, sports, or a busy street with traffic. When you shoot weddings, if you get too close it can be very intrusive ....</p>

<p>If the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR is too expensive, you may have to live with one without VR, but getting closer with a shorter lens is freqeuntly not the answer. Otherwise, why would you buy a 200mm lens at all?</p>

[john_ashby2]

<p>Handholding a 200mm lens on a DX body (like the D40), you shouldn't use a shutter speed slower than 1/300th of a second (without VR). The D40 can't even sync the flash that fast. Using the lens indoors in dim light, at fast shutter speed, without a flash is going to cause problems.</p>

<p>On a tripod, you don't have that concern.</p>

[natalie_m3]

<blockquote>

<p>The D40 can't even sync the flash that fast.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D40 actually has a 1/500 sync, so he shouldn't have any problem with flash at that shutter speed. However, the D40x's sync is lower, 1/200.</p>

[joe_h3]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>Although I know there are a slew of photographers that exclusively use fast primes over telephoto zooms...I do understand your point about not being "over intrusive". I wouldn't need the long end for sports or animals as much as to photograph people. In any instances where I need the 200mm range but having trouble handholding I can utilize a tripod, or as said before, rent the Nikon until I am able to make the big purchase myself.</p>

<p>So far, on the weddings that I have 2nd shot at, my main lense is my 18-50mm and there haven't been many instances where I have been shooting long with the 200...I think it would be much easier for me to justify spending $1700 if it was on what I would consider to be my main lense - a wide to mid range zoom like the 17-55 2.8...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>When I shoot weddings, at least during the ceremony, I tend to use longer lenses so that I can shoot from a little farther away or from the side. Frequently my wife shoots video or when there is a separate videographer, I don't want to get in front of them and block their view.</p>

<p>I simply don't like the frequently used expression "zoom with your feet." To me it does not make any sense, and when you change the distance from the subject to the camera, the perspective also changes. Otherwise, Joe, I think your plan to rent the 70-200 VR when necessary sounds reasonable. I was fortunate to get mine a few years ago when it was $1400. The price is quite extreme today.</p>

[manakash_dali]

<p>VR is a gimmick. I usually leave it on anyway. The only VR lens I have is the 70-200. When I forget, my pictures come out fine nonetheless. <br>

Btw, VR can be useful for action shots where you're panning with a moving subject. But you should use non-active or passive VR.</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>Here is my basic take of on VR. The rule for focal length and shutter speed is a very rough guideline. It is great guideline for an inexperienced photographer. But as one experience and skills increase this guideline becomes extremely insignificant. VR effects seems to be much significant on the inexperienced shooter and those with physical disabilities like Lex mentioned, than those shooters that have experience shooting long lenses and no physical disabilities.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Unless you have super-human capabilities, most "average" photographers have some difficulty hand holding at slower shutter speeds because our hands are not that steady, and that becomes a bigger problem for telephoto lenses because of their higher magnification. I bought my first SLR back in 1972 and have been an active photographer ever since, so I have 30+ years of experience. Obviously I am not 25 years old any more :-); otherwise I don't have any physical disabilities and I find VR a great help when I need to hand hold the 70-200 at 200mm at roughly 1/125 sec and slower. As I pointed out earlier, I already had the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S and I upgraded to the 70-200 VR solely for the VR capability and it sure makes a huge difference.</p>

<p>Additionally, VR is a great help for a lot of casual photographers who prefer the convenience of not using a tripod or other proper support in situations where most serious photographers would use a tripod.</p>

[seancrane]

<p>Well, VR is certainly not a gimmick as someone else stated. I shoot wildlife not weddings, but it has really changed the way that I shoot. I rarely take a tripod anymore when stalking creatures. And on my 200-400 lens it helps not just at very slow shutter speeds, as I also see mentioned a lot on these forums. Granted you're talking about a 70-200 but at the 400 end of my zoom I could easily get blur from the camera at anything under 1/500th of second on a regular basis if it wasn't for the VR. So even if the subject is moving, the VR still helps. As for how slow the shutter can be, attached is a monkey I shot at 1/15th of a second at the longer end of my zoom (and with the additional reach of the D300's crop factor). The monkey was just there for a second before jumping away. It was the only L'Hoest monkey I saw on a recent trip to Uganda and I wouldn't have gotten a shot without the VR. I also have the 70-200 VR which I use a lot and the VR is very useful to me (even at somewhat faster shutter speeds, the shots just seem sharper).</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9314021-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="452" /></p>

[hus]

<p>I own a D300 as well and I tried my 70-200 on it with VR on and off and there's difference. It really helped especially at 200mm. Great for wedding. Below 1/15 might be unacceptable though. The thing is it won't stop motion blur. Would be great if it did. Maybe one day they will...</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>

<p ><em><strong>I remember reading it as a supposedly "true" anecdote when I was ayoung. That version had violinist Jascha Heifitz being hailed by a man on a New York street. The man asks Heifitz, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall?" And Heifitz replies, always "without breaking stride," "Practice! Practice! Practice!"</strong></em></p>

<br>

There is nothing superhuman about being able to shoot at slow shutter speeds handheld. All you have to do is shoot quality images for 7 days and nights straight. You should then have no issue shooting slow handheld images. ;) Or you could simply could use these <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stalker+of+the+web/lowlight.html" target="_blank">low light photography</a> techniques.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Instead of the Sigma, you might want to consider the AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 in case you can not get the 70-200VR (like I could not...). I tested it against the Sigma on a D80, found the autofocus of the Sigma to be around the same speed as the 80-200, but wide open, the Nikon was certainly better. So I've got the 80-200, and now a D300 and any concern on AF speed: no need to worry. For non-sports, it's fine.</p>

<p>I've used it for weddings, though, and VR would have been an added bonus there. But one thing to ask yourself: do I make enough on these photos to buy me the 70-200VR, or is it a hobby where you maybe should be more mindful of a budget because there are no returns? In that latter case, consider the 80-200 f/2.8 and a 85 f/1.8.</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>You can SEE the difference VR makes by looking through the viewfinder IMO. Zoom out to 200mm (300mm is even more noticable if you have a 70-300mm VR lens) and frame a shot. For me the image throught the viewfinder is definitely shaky. Depress the shutter halfway to engage the VR and watch how the image seems to change from a shake to a very slow waver - at least that's my experience.</p>

<p>I'll admit, I naturally have shaky hands (noticable enough that people have commented on it - but they have never been a hinderance attempting things requiring fine motor skills such as soldering or building models and such. But it's definitely not an asset for photography.) If you have really good technique then you might not require VR but for me it's a plus.</p>

<p>So, count me in a VR fan. Oh, and Brent, I'd love to get to an E3 convention when my kids get older - for now I'll just have to watch in on G4 Tech TV. And what, no pictures of Oliva Munn or Morgan Webb? LOL. Great shots.</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>VR is great. You can see it work even while looking through the viewfinder. I would consider a 3rd party lens similar to the 80-200 2.8 but none of them have VR, which IMO is essential especially when zoomed in at 200mm. I think once you'd try it you'd be convinced.</p>

[keith_lubow]

<p>Do you need it? Absolutely not. It is a relatively new feature, and 100% of my favorite photos of all time were taken before ANY telepoto was widely used, let alone one with VR or IS.</p>

<p>If used properly, does it do what it claims to do? Absolutely. It is a wonderful and useful tool.</p>

<p>What it does is one thing: It works to counteract the visual effects of camera shake. It thus allows the use of slower shutter speeds than one would normally be able to use for a sharp shot hand held. With slower sutter speeds come all the effects thereof, including more motion blur. You should also know that it can make quickly composed and shot pictures even more blurry, even at fast shutter speeds, so should not be engaged if the light is good enough for a hand held shot. That is pretty much all you need to know. Your specific situation will have to determine whether it is worth the extra money to you or not.</p>

[keith_lubow]

<p>I should clarify what I just posted. Let me change that one passage to:</p>

<p>You should also know that it can make quickly composed and shot pictures even more blurry, even at fast shutter speeds, so should be allowed to "settle in" before you fire off a shot. This also applies even if the light is good enough for a hand held shot without it. When you raise the camera and fire a shot quickly, the VR parts are still shifting around trying to figure out what to do when you actually take the shot, so the shot becomes unsharp.</p>

[paul_soohoo2]

<p>One of the things I see people implying is that VR is for "casual photographers" or snapshooters not willing to put in the time to learn proper hand holding techniques or set up a tripod. While that may be true VR as well as other advancements like autofocus allows many people to enter photography. Not everyone has the physical make up to hold a camera steady or carry a tripod. This should not bar you from being a photographer. When I got my first Nikon F I use to practice lining images up in the split image prism but with 55 year old eyes I would lose many shots without the aide of autofocus so these advancements (not gimmicks) make photography more inclusive. Note that VR/IS has trickled down to virtually every P&S camera which is a good thing. <br>

I think there was a similar implication that Shun debunked that real photographers zoom with their feet and lazy people zoom by twisting he zoom ring. I hope we are well past the primes vs zoom debates.</p>

<p>One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned is that VR keeps your view finder image steady when you half press your shutter. I find it disconcerting to try to compose an image in the viewfinder if the picture is dancing around (if you can hand hold a 400mm lens without the image moving about in the viewfinder kudos to you but I can't do it and that's with years of practice). VR solves that problem too.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Paul, I didn't mean to imply anything. IMO there is aboslutely nothing wrong with being a casual photographer. I myself shoot my share of casual family snapshots, but I don't post those to the web. If one only shoots snapshots, that is perfectly fine, although one of our objectives here in photo.net is to get everybody become better photographers.</p>

<p>I simply find the expression "zoom with your feet" highly misleading, especially for beginners. Zooming means changing the angle of view via chaning the focal length, but the relative position between camera and subject doesn't change. Once you move with your feet, you are changing the perspective and you'll have a very difference relationship between subject and background, not to mention that frequently you cannot get farther or closer as I have already pointed out earlier.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Shun exactly - but let me add this aspect. A zoom lens<strong> and </strong> moving your feet gives you complete freedom to get exactly the perspective you want for the occasion. The <strong>combination</strong> allows you to change your position relative to e.g. the people you shoot and to choose the best and appropriate angle of view for that selected position.</p>

<p>"Zoom with your feet" is a nice educational practice that everybody should do once in a while. But that is all there is to it since zoom lenses today offer image quality that leaves nothing to desire and is better than that of many primes.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the VR is very useful on a 70-200/2.8 type lens when used on DX cameras. With the better high ISO options in (12 MP) FX cameras and shorter reach, I don't think VR is necessary at FL <= 200mm. This is especially for people photography as I find that subject movement is often a problem with exposure times longer than 1/200s, so the window of significant improvement due to VR is narrow, unless you find having slightly blurry people in your shots acceptable. In your case with the D300, there is no question that the VR would be very useful in a lens with this focal length range. The Nikon 70-200 has other advantages; it is very well corrected for CA and has consistent and beautiful bokeh which is very useful when photographing people in tight spaces.</p>

<p>However, personally I mostly use focal lengths from 24mm to 105mm at weddings (on FX) and don't think I would need anything longer. Using a very long lens requires you to be far away from the action which means it is harder to keep foregrounds clean and also results in compressed perspective which to me looks unattractive. That said, I do occasionally use a 135 or 200mm to isolate a person e.g. the mother of the bride during the ceremony without getting close. I prefer in such situations to be a bit further away to avoid attracting attention. However, for the main events at weddings I think shorter focal lengths are more appropriate - often when long lenses are used people it results in the appearance of people stacked on top of each other like a pile of cards.<br>

There is another, practical aspect which often prevents the use of long lenses in indoor events: there isn't enough light. f/2.8 is quite slow, to be frank. In many indoor situations to get sharp pics consistently, f/1.4 or f/2 can be needed even on FX to stop movement. If you use flash you can use it to stop the movement of the person in the foreground but then you may have stuff that gets blurred in the background because of movement. I never liked this kind of an effect. Also, I prefer available light in many situations for stylistic reasons and use flash when I need to improve the quality of light (i.e. fill the shadows and introduce light into the eyes) in more formal photos. When I use flash I prefer to do it elaborately rather than just pop with on-camera flash and get all that glare and piercing catchlights. Being limited to flash only due to lack of an appropriate wide aperture would put me off shooting indoor events. Anyway, my point is that you may want to consider f/1.4 and f/2 primes also instead of just the telezooms. This is not to say that I claim they can do the same thing - primes are different and require a more planned approach to shooting since you always have to have the right lens for the shot. Although I respect Walter's point of view, I find plenty to complain about in the image quality of many of today's zooms. Even if you do have a zoom on your camera, if it is a good lens, its range is finite (typically 2-3x, so you still have to swap lenses from time to time), it is often a bit soft wide open (which is the only aperture that comes to play at most indoor events), it doesn't do close-ups well, and a lot of the time my subject matter is such that an aspect ratio of 2:3 is not appropriate so I have to crop anyway (though perhaps less than with the primes), and while it gives more freedom from a point of view of perspective and framing, a lot of the time there are physical obstructions that prevent you from choosing the best point of view so "complete freedom" is quite an exaggeration.</p>

<p>Back to the original topic, yes, when used with the D300, the 70-200 partly due to its VR and also for its other characteristics would be an excellent choice for a telezoom for use in low light, provided that f/2.8 is adequate for the light you're shooting at.</p>

[seancrane]

<p>To say that VR is just for casual shooters is ridiculous. As I stated earlier I don't shoot weddings so maybe that's a different thing, but for wildlife photographers it's a great technology no matter what your skill level. I agree with the posters that say that it isn't as useful in shorter focal length lenses, but there's a reason that most expensive long lenses from Canon and Nikon now include it. And a reason that most pros (wildlife pros) use it on their long lenses. When a tripod is practical, by all means, I use one, I but to drag one up a mountain, or through a rainforest for a day can inhibit the shots I get. I just hook the tripod foot of my 200-400 to my belt (allowing me to carry all the weight on my hip) and can hike all day and be ready for whatever happens to come into view. Incidentally, the VR of this particular lens also helps when on a tripod.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>can hike all day and be ready for whatever happens to come into view.</em></p>

<p>Well, that fits one of the definitions of casual in Merriam Webster; "subject to, resulting from, or occurring by chance", as opposed to an approach where you plan the shots. (I don't mean there is anything wrong with this type of photography; I do a lot of it myself.)</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>For me VR has not been all that significant. It does work but has had little impact on my shooting. I do use long lenses in low light, without tripods. But I am also old school I will take fast glass over VR every time. Fast glass with VR is a plus, but it is not a major feature to me. Most often I will use my 300mm f/2.8 (Non VR) with monopod but I have shot a lot with a monopod. That lens I is a pain to go below 1/125 handheld.</p>