How critical is VR on zoom lenses?

[andry_limawan]

<p>Hi Guys! I am new to the photography world and just got myself a D90 with a couple of lenses. My question is how helpful is VR when you're taking pics at 200mm or more? I have been looking at zoom lenses lately(70-200 and 80-200) and a couple of the sales people told me that at that range you'll need a tripod to get a good picture anyway so you really don't need VR that much. I keep thinking that Nikon(and other manufacturers) has got to have a good reason to include VR in that range, is there any truth to what he said? Appreciate any feedbacks!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>No, you don't need a tripod to take a picture with a 70-200 unless it's quite dark or in case you need to increase your DOF and have a static subject (landscapes etc.) VR is not necessary but can be useful on occasion in this range.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>VR is:<br>

a) a life saver<br>

b) good for 1 - 2 stops extra exposure hand held (ie You can use the lens hand held down to a slower shutter speed)<br>

c) a battery hog<br>

d) Misunderstood and confused by many.</p>

<p>Correct answer is e) all of the above. </p>

<p>Whether or not you can hand hold at a certain focal length is dependent on several factors including - shutter speed, your endurance and your strength. VR does help at slower shutter speeds, but it is limited in what it helps with. </p>

<p>For me - on the 70 - 200 - it's nice to have, since I shoot a lot of sports in low / poor light. </p>

<p>If I want a guaranteed sharp shot - I'll use a tripod or monopod everytime.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[shambrick007]

<p>" sales people told me that at that range you'll need a tripod to get a good picture anyway so you really don't need VR that much." - BS. I find VR (IS in my case cuz I shoot Canon) VERY useful at that range.</p>

[dale_dimmick1]

<p>I have a Nikon 70-200 on My Fuji S5 and use the VR all the time. And, given the 1.5 mag. factor, I'm actually shooting max 300 mm. I have used a tripod but rarely and only need it when I'm at the end of the range under a 30th sec. VR allows me to shoot in low light as well, and 1/15th/sec. handheld at 175mm is sharp.<br>

The old rule of thumb is invest in glass. Bodies will come and go, especially with digital technology. Sales people often have an agenda so trust the opinions of seasoned photogs. That being said, you should have a tripod, even for occasional use, and they represent a small investment. Get the VR glass, you won't be dissappointed! BTW, these are among Nikons most popular current technology lenses. That says alot in itself.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You should have a good tripod (even though I think your salesman is trying hard to sell you a high-profit tripod in this case).</p>

<p>But VR is very very useful in that range. For sports, mostly worthless (except for really cool blurred shots), but for much photography it can come in very handy.</p>

<p>What will you shoot with it?</p>

[dan_south]

<p>VR is very useful, especially on telephoto lenses (focal length > 50mm of FX, > 35mm on DX).</p>

<p>It's not necessarily useful on "zoom" lenses, because a zoom lens might cover wide-angle focal lengths where VR doesn't help much.</p>

<p><strong>VR is NOT important when:</strong><br />- the shutter speed is very fast (1/500th of a second or greater)<br />- flash is the main light source</p>

<p><strong>VR is ineffective when:<br /></strong>- the subject is moving rapidly - Example: If someone is swinging a baseball bat or a golf club, you need a fast shutter speed to freeze that movement. With VR and a slower shutter speed (e.g. 1/60th) you'll still see a lot of motion blur in the image.<br>

- the shutter speed is slower than 1/30th of a second (you need a tripod in this case)</p>

<p><strong>VR is MOST effective when:<br /></strong>- the focal length is long (i.e. in the telephoto range, and the longer the focal length, the more valuable VR is).<br />- the shutter speed is between 1/30th of a second and 1/500th of a second<br />- the subject is not moving rapidly<br />- flash is not the MAIN light source</p>

<p>Note: There seems to be some dispute as to whether VR helps when a camera is mounted on a tripod. I've had good success with VR and a tripod in some instances, but at other times, the VR mechanism seems to get rather confused.</p>

<p>The current version of the 70-200 f/2.8 VR G is an excellent lens, but it is being replaced soon with a new version that might be even better. We'll have to wait for real-world test results before we can say for sure, but the specs of the new lens look promising.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>IMHO, for a xx-200mm lens, if you live above 1/200 sec shutter or faster, its a nice to have but not very much needed. If you are a lowest ISO or don't shoot kind of guy/gal, VR is a gift from heaven. </p>

[dale_dimmick1]

<p>I have a Nikon 70-200 on My Fuji S5 and use the VR all the time. And, given the 1.5 mag. factor, I'm actually shooting max 300 mm. I have used a tripod but rarely and only need it when I'm at the end of the range under a 30th sec. VR allows me to shoot in low light as well, and 1/15th/sec. handheld at 175mm is sharp.<br>

The old rule of thumb is invest in glass. Bodies will come and go, especially with digital technology. Sales people often have an agenda so trust the opinions of seasoned photogs. That being said, you should have a tripod, even for occasional use, and they represent a small investment. Get the VR glass, you won't be dissappointed! BTW, these are among Nikons most popular current technology lenses. That says alot in itself.</p><div></div>

[pete_harlan1]

<p>Pretty good concensus..I agree with most.</p>

<p>Personally, it has been a life saver at times when I don't want to bump up the iso.</p>

<p>I've always had a concern about the moveable lens elements.<br>

I wonder if lens collimation is as good as a fixed Non-VR lens and; is it subject to variability shot to shot?<br>

So far I have not (visually) seen any evidence there might be inconsistencies in this regard.</p>

<p>My biggest complaint;<br>

1) VR really chews battery life.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>I use it often enough on the 70-200/2.8 that I would really, really miss it if it was gone. On the other hand, some of my favorite work with that lens includes shots at high enough shutter speeds that the VR isn't a factor and is turned off. It just depends on your subject matter and shooting circumstances.<br /><br />I can think of two gigs where the nature of the event meant hand-held, low-light compositions that required f/4 or f/5.6 (the resulting slower shutter speeds) because of the scene, and required a working distance that called for the long end of the lens. The work sold, and well enough to more than pay for the difference between an 80-200 without VR, and a 70-200 with it. It has continued to earn its keep since.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While all that has been said is true - VR indeed can make a huge difference - there is one thing to remember too: is it a MUST? And that it isn't. There are perfectly viable ways to live without VR, one of them being the D90's good ISO800/ISO1600 performance. Another, usually overlooked, is learning how to hold a camera with a heavier lens and position yourself properly. Sure a tripod is best, but hand-held can go a serious long way if you make sure you support your camera properly. In fact, having heavier lenses for me often makes it easier to keep the camera still - it's all in the posture.</p>

<p>The 70-200VR is an absolute lovely lens, it is also considerably more expensive than the 80-200 f/2.8. And that is also a very lovely lens. Not quite as excellent as the 70-200, but for the price difference between these 2, it does bring up the question: is VR worth it? By the way, since you use a D90, do not wait for the new version - it is even more expensive and it is mainly introduced to address issues on FX cameras, not so much as an update for DX models.</p>

<p>One point I do disagree, though, is the usefulness of including VR on shorter lenses. I also thought it was totally unndeeded, but since I have a 16-85VR, I kind of changed my mind. It can also be utterly useful. Yes, I can shoot sharp pictures down to 1/8th, and that's also thanks to VR (since I can't with non-VR lenses). It sure opens up options for low-light/night photography. It is nonsense to say that VR is useless/ineffective below 1/30th, seriously. Just use a shorter VR lens at night, and you will see the difference.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>A few years back I upgraded from the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S to the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR precisely because I want VR in the occasions that I must hand hold it.</p>

<p>At 200mm, most of the time you should be able to get away with hand holding at 1/60 sec with VR and perhaps 1/30 if you are lucky. Even so, it is not going to be that sharp and subject movement starts becoming an issue at 1/30 sec.</p>

[JAPster]

<p>There is still a nugget of truth in what the sales folks told you. More specifically, there is a statement in the owner's manual for every Nikon VR lens I own which says, in effect, "if you put the camera/lens on a tripod and lock it down, then you should turn VR to OFF". Apparently, the proper use of a tripod greatly eliminates camera shake, and that's the type of image distortion VR is designed to address/improve. Perhaps, it might even be said that VR, when used on a camera thats locked to a tripod, does more damage than good? At any rate, if you carefully follow this instruction from the manual, then you will turn OFF the VR when you attach the camera to a tripod and lock it down. So in that situation, VR does you no good, and the lens is operating like a lens with no VR at all. But that should be OK since you have the camera on a solid tripod. I think that is what the sales peopl meant by their comment.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you plan to hand-hold your camera a lot, then VR is quite helpful since its designed to reduce/prevent image distortion caused by camera wobble. And, based on the previous comments by working photographers, it does that function well.</p>

[Sanford]

<p>I don't know about the 70-210 mm zoom, but in the 18-200 mm zoom Nikkor I consider it next to useless adding complexity, cost and size to an already expensive lens. It just slows thing down while it makes it's little adjustments.</p>

[arun_seetharam]

<p>Summarizing all answers, there is no clear 'absolutely required' or 'worth the money' on VR. Tripod or a monopod or some support/rest works better. But it may help, Only in case of<br>

1. Telephoto upto (now that Nikon is making wide angle zooms as big and heavy as 200s Ha! Ha!) 400mm compact. One must have muscle to hand hold 200-400 or bigger lenses.<br>

2. Subject is relatively stationary<br>

3. Shutter speed less than 1/100<br>

The 14-24 and 24-70 are not VRs. Of course they dont need to be.....I shoot VR...but most times I dont see a difference, really. Honestly simpler the lens the better is the quality and the longevity. I wouldnt worry about it....</p>

[pge]

<p>Andry<br /> <br /> You are considering two quite expensive lenses. <br /> <br /> I think it is clear from the comments here that vr is great. It is not magic and it does not defy the laws of physics, but used correctly it is very nice. I agree with what most people say here.<br /> <br /> So why not consider another great lens, not in the class of these nice f2.8 lenses you are looking at, but still very nice. The 70-300mm vr lens may be just what you are looking for, and in some situations would be preferable to the 80-200 or even the 70-200. If you do get it, notice how often you shoot at 300, which I bet will be often. Although I would love a nice 2.8 telephoto like the 70-200mm I would miss that extra reach, especially now that I have purchased a d700.</p>

[jyoungman]

<p>I did a bunch of safari photography with the Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-f/5.6. I just took a shot at 1/50s at 400mm and it's borderline acceptable. 1/100s would almost certainly be fine. You could achieve this with an extra 2 or so stops on the lens, but an f/2.8 400mm lens is hard to come by and if you can get one it's very heavy. So having the stabilisation is very useful. However, it will not stop movement and therefore isn't good for everything.<br>

FWIW, while I find this 120-400 mm .lens has its uses, I also bought the Nikkor 70-300 and found it's both far lighter and far quieter.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Success is the intersection of preparation and opportunity. Be prepared. Sometimes you dont know when the opportunity will wander by. This shot is with a 70-300, a 450 equivalent, at 1/30 hand held, breathing hard on the run and bent over unsupported. I can have trouble with a 50mm at 1/30 without vr with the best conditions. This bobcat just wandered by while I was blurring Yosemite falls at 1/30. If you have the cash, no question on the vr for me. Another reason I like the 70-200, like the ability to rotate it in the tripod ring, vr is just there and it works when you need it. </p><div></div>

[andry_limawan]

<p>Wow thanks for all of the feedbacks! A friend told me(I know I keep listening to other people but I am new so bear with me:)) that with lenses you get what you pay for so I guess that part is true. I am still thinking which lens I will get but I am going to take a look at 70-300 VR as well. Again thank you for your thoughts!</p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>When I upgraded from a consumer zoom with VR to my 80-200 2.8 AF-D I thought I would miss VR. So far, I haven't missed it at all. I also haven't missed AF-S, funny enough..</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I find VR very useful on my 16-85 (w/D90). I've gotten night shots without a tripod, I would have thought impossible. On the other hand I don't find the 70-300 that useful, regardless of it's VR. It just doesn't seem sharp enough, particularly over 200mm, when VR is most important.</p>

<p>On the 105 micro I don't find the VR useful at all. I would rather have a smaller, lighter lens. VR is of no value in macro work.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I get a high percentage of keepers shooting at 1/30 (or even less) with a Nikkor 70-200/2.8 AFS VR. You would need to shoot at 1/250 or faster to do as well without VR, which is impractical for concerts and plays, nightime and most indoor sports*.</p>

<p>* You can stop action reasonably well at 1/60, with a sense of timing and a little luck. Neither helps much with camera shake, short of a tripod.</p>