VR lenses are they worth the extra cost?

[Allen Herbert]

Are they really worth the extra cost? What is the compromise? I like

the atmosphere of low light photography without flash, so I�m

thinking of buying one; would like some feed back before i do.

Thanks.

[Rick Waller]

Yes. There is no compromise that I am aware of. VR performs as advertised, at least on the 70-200/2.8

[spencer_hahn]

Compromises OTOMH: extra cost, uses power, more elements (more flare), more electronics to mess up, more wiring inside--if you like to take apart lenses like me, DO NOT take apart a VR (or an AF-S even, for that matter...trust me).

[spencer_hahn]

Only you can judge how big these compromises are. Personally, I think cost would be the only real compromise (maybe flare, too).

[emmanuel_guilmeau]

I am so happy with my 70-200/2.8. Many photos are now possible. I can work until 60' without any problems. It is a great lens which changed my photograph life!!!of course, the price is important!!!But for how long time do you buy this lens....

[armando_roldan]

for $2000 for a VR 70-200mm and $1500 for mediocre telephoto at 80-400mm?..no..they are not worth it on my budget. I rarely shoot at or below 1/60 and then, I would use a $30 tripod or faster film.

[xmms]

that depends......

if i using the 70-200,i will always setup it on tripod.so vr installed

on 70-200 is useless for me.

but it seems that the optical quality of vr version 70-200 is a bit better than the old version,maybe i would purchase one :)

[waldenl]

Just ordered a 70-200 VR for ~1400, check around for pricing.

[david_h._hartman]

Even B. Moose Peterson who prides himself at being able to

shoot long lenses on a tripod at ridiculously low speeds says VR

on the AF-S 200~400/4.0G VR ED-IF "really proved itself"...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"In the beginning, I wasn't really excited about

using the VR, I didn't see any better image quality when

shooting at 1/20th. Using standard long lens technique did a

fine job in delivering sharp images. That was until a few

days later when I was shooting in an awful wind. Long lenses

were chattering something fierce. The VR really proved itself

then producing very sharp results at slow shutter speeds."

--B. Moose Peterson.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>I have a Bogen 3068 Video Tripod. It has stainless steel lower

legs to lower the center of gravity. The weight is 7Kg (15.5 lb.)

with an Extra HD Sinar 2-Way pan tilt head. Ive seen the

finder image dance in the Santa Anna Winds with 400mm to 500mm

lenses. I can see use for VR.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>VR lenses are they worth the extra cost?<br>

</em><br>

Now the down side. How many years is it going to take you to get

your moneys worth? Given that Nikon does not sell VR

lens parts to independent repair shops, once Nikon no longer

supports your lens this source of parts will not exist. This

means no extending the years of reparability for your lens. Its

not just Nikon. All of these camera companies are making throw-away

products, even very expensive throw-away products. Think this is

too cynical? Take a look at this thread...<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007vmu"

target="_new"><u>Need new Aperture Ring for 35-70mm 2.8 AF-D</u></a><br>

<br>

and this link...<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=36956&is=USA"

target="_new"><u>Nikon Zoom AF Zoom Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D AF Lens</u></a><br>

<br>

A camera repairman friend has been telling me about this "stuff"

for years. Again this is not just Nikon, its the whole

damned industry. They do not care about their customers.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[gary_woodard]

Moose Peterson is a paid Nikon spokesman, if Nikon makes it Moose likes

it.

[klix]

I have the 70-200mm AFS-VR, and IMO, yes, it is worth it... in fact, I'd say it's just about a necessity when shooting from a moving platform (boat, car, plane).

 

My 80-200/2.8 (2-ring) has gotten a lot of closet time since I've bought the VR lens.

[ShunCheung]

David Hartman has to be around long enough to know that in Moose Peterson's Nikon Handbook, there almost isn't a Nikkor lens that Peterson doesn't describe as wonderful, excellent, fantastic, etc. Even the late Galen Rowell was a paid Nikon spokesperson. They may also be good photographers and genuinely like Nikon lenses, but I would take Moose's praises with a grain of salt.

 

Whether you can benefit from VR or not highly depends on your shooting style. If you frequently shoot from a moving boat or plane, VR can indeed make a huge difference. But if your subject is moving, you'll still need a fast shutter speed to freeze subject movement. I typically use my long lenses on a tripod, and so far I don't have any VR lenses, although I may get some in the future. In other words, I am in no hurry to upgrade my 80-200 AF-S to a 70-200 AF-S VR, but if I can afford it some day, I certainly wouldn't mind having a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S, VR or not.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"Moose Peterson is a paid Nikon spokesman, if Nikon

makes it Moose likes it." --Gary Woodard<br>

</em><br>

If you read between the lines carefully you can tell when Moose

likes something Nikon which is almost always and when he really,

really likes something. Moose is constant on VR. He doesnt

see much use for it much of the time. He uses a technique that

allows him to shoot at very slow shutterspeeds without VR.

However, he has found a use for VR in blustery weather. Yes, he

is sponsored by Nikon. No, I see no problem with this information.

Hed say the same thing if he wasnt sponsored in this

case. What Moose wont say (at least I dont think he

will) is when something Nikon makes sucks.<br>

<br>

Bjørn Rørslett pulls no punches and hes damned picky, I

like that. If you want a good review, one that tells "The

Good, The Bad And The Ugly" read Bjørns. Bjørn and

Moose use their telephotos differently so Bjørn points out the

failings of many Nikon tripod collars quite freely. Moose uses a

technique that minimizes these failings. For example Bjørn

pointed out rather sharply the failings of the AF-S 300/4.0D ED-IFs

tripod collar, Moose said "Bull" as I recall. I

understand both photographers position and if I owned an AF-S 300/4.0D

ED-IF I'd buy an after market tripod collar as I want the same

collar Bjørn wants. I also know Id have better results

using Mooses technique with the collar Bjørn would specify.<br>

<br>

Bjørn likes the tripod collar on the AF-S 70~200/2.8G ED-IF VR.

I would not be surprised if Bjørn Rørslett shamed Nikon into

designing its better tripod collar for that lens. I also would

guess the petite and nearly useless tripod collar on the AF-S 300/4.0D

ED-IF is the result of marketing and management and not the

engineers. Its clearly style over function.<br>

<br>

OK, Im rambling. Anyway Moose points out a use for VR where

Ive seen a need. A use some may not recognize. That's why I

quoted Moose. If VR works from a helicopter and IS works from a

dingy it works!<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[markci]

<i>If you read between the lines carefully you can tell when Moose likes something Nikon which is almost always and when he really, really likes something.</i>

<p>

I guess if he uses less than five exclamation points in his review he doesn't really like the lens. In any case it begs the question: who cares what Moose Peterson likes?

<p>

At any rate, the capabilities of the VR/IS lenses are well known. There really aren't any compromises, except in terms of money, and only you can say whether it's "worth it" or not.

[Allen Herbert]

maybe flare, too).

 

That is a concern. Why flare ?.

[ShunCheung]

All Canon IS and Nikon VR lenses use extra elements that can moved to stabilize lens vibration. Those extra elements can lead to flare and some loss in resolution. For example, Bob Atkins has tested two Canon 300mm/f4 lenses, one w/ and one w/out IS, and he concluded that the one without IS is slightly better optically. Now, the difference is so minute that it probably doesn't matter for all practical purposes, but having so many elements is not necessarily a good thing.

[ilkka_nissila]

David, the tripod collar of the 300/4 AF-S is not <i>that</i> bad. Yes, it sucks, but it's easy enough to augment by stuffing something between the leg and the collar. Without significant financial investment. Yes, the Burzynski collar is elegant, and yes, Nikon should've done better, but it's a nice lens and the collar is certainly not a good reason to avoid it unless one can get the f/2.8. <p> Like zooms, VR lenses could introduce a number of issues. 1) Possibility of mechanical failure, 2) additional power consumption, 3) flare and ghosting, 4) price, 5) weight, and most importantly, 6) it doesn't stop subject motion. Other than that, I guess they're great and allow one to capture shots that you couldn't otherwise do. But non-VR lenses also allow one to capture things you can't do with VR lenses (mainly due to smaller size and lower flare), so like everything in life, there is a choice to be made, and no one choice is right for every situation. <p> That said, most people who have bought VR or IS lenses seem to be happy with them. I can imagine that having a VR/IS tele in the ballpark of 200-300 mm would allow one to get close to animals and grab shots which one can't do when carrying a tripod with equivalent FL lenses.

[vito]

My 80-400 VR has performed great and I am happy with it. It is quite heavy, but it is not any bigger than comparable lenses from other brands. It works great for nature shots where other even 300 mm lenses proved useless to me. Even at the zoo I find 300 mm inadequate, unless you are prepared to crop and lose resolution.

 

VR has its limitations and is no miracle cure. At 400mm you can not expect good results at or below 1/90 speed. That much shake even VR cannot handle. At shorter zoom lengths you can shoot slower, of course.

 

I paid $1300 after rebate.

[douglas_greenberg]

Someone wrote that the Nikon 80-400mm. VR is a "mediocre" lens. This is not true. The lens is optically excellent; at 400mm. it's every bit as good as my old 400mm. f5.6 ED-IF Nikkor (though not quite as good as the really, really old non-IF version of the lens). It's versatile and sharp and provides excellent color rendition. It's only weaknesses are its weight and its slow autofocus. Using a non-VR tele of that length with a $30 tripod is pretty hopeless. You would need a much sturdier tripod/ballhead setup. Now a solid beanbag arrangement can provide excellent results, but this is not always practical. The Nikon VR zoom provides 1-3 stops of extra steadiness in handheld situations and that's a lifesaver sometimes.

[david_h._hartman]

Ilkka,

 

I own the venerable (and somewhat toothy) 300/4.5 ED-IF. I�d love to replace it with a AF-S 300/4.0D ED-IF. The major problem with the 300/4.5 ED-IF is it needs to be stopped down and the only workaround is to stop down. A medium long or super telephoto should have excellent performance wide open, at least that�s my position.

 

Best,

 

Dave.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"Using a non-VR tele of that length with a $30 tripod

is pretty hopeless." --Douglas Greenberg<br>

</em><br>

A lot of people worry about raising a tripods center column

a little but I notice torque and bounce with a 400mm lens on my

old C. M. Marchioni Tiltall and my Bogen 3021 when the lower legs

are extended. This is particularly bad on a slippery surface.

Spiked feet can help. Today you cant get anything worth

using for $30.00. Hopeless is right.<br>

<br>

<em>"I rarely shoot at or below 1/60 and then, I would use a

$30 tripod or faster film." --Armando Roldan<br>

</em><br>

At or below 1/60th second is where you need a fine tripod or the

skills of an Olympic target shooter.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

There are compromises both ways, VR v. non-VR.<br>

<br>

Ive had a few opportunities to photography water bombers. I

used my old 300/4.5 ED-IF. Two problems: 300mm wasnt quite

enough reach most of the time. I got sharp photos at about 1/800th

and f/4.5~5.6. The problem which I thought of as I was shooting

was that shutter speed stopped the propellers. These planes were

all turboprops. I was hand holding at the time as they were

flying past, and not towards me so there was no time to adjust a

monopod. Also the 300/4.5 ED-IF really wants to be stopped down

to f/8.0. I got some snapshots. A 400mm lens with VR would have

been great.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave.

[john_cox]

Allen,

 

I've used the F100/MB-15 + Nikon 300mm AF-S + TC-14E, Nikon 80-400mm VR, and Canon EOS 3 100-400 IS combo. Of the 3 combos, the Canon 100-400 was the best in terms of focusing speed, tracking, and convenience. The Canon 100-400 IS was invaluable on a recent trip to Africa.

 

However, I have found the Nikon 300 AF-S + 1.4x to be the sharpest of the 3 combos...even suprisingly handheld down to 1/125 (I don't recommend, however, doing this often) despite the fact I know that I'm not rock steady in holding such. The 300 AF-S is a tack sharp and fairly fast lens and adding the 1.4x only slowed it slightly but didn't reduce image quality. I can't speak of the tripod/collar issues I've read about.

 

I used the 80-400mm VR on a trip to Yellowstone and found the AF to be painstakingly slow. Most pics I took of pronghorns chasing each other at 25-40mph at about ~ 400 yards were not in focus. The lens hood is big and ackward and I don't particularly like the "hesitant" 2-ring focus/zoom setup. However, with that said, this lens captured several pics during both overcast and May snowy conditions out there that would not have been captured otherwise, 2 of which I enlarged to 8x12 for a show. Also, we came upon an elk calf near a road (research related) that was probably a day or 2 old. It was late in the evening and the calf stopped near the cow...I took the shot at 1/30 400mm f/5.6 and it was very sharp...but the most important shot of the calf walking in to nurse was blurry...a situation where an f/2.8 may have saved the day. VR does work and the lens is pretty sharp...however, this lens should not be relied on for action photography if it constitutes a significant portion of your photography. For slow work, especially w/digital it would be a useful lens.

[tom_harris1]

Just returned my 24-120 3.5-5.6 VR to dealer.

WAY too slow when shoting ANY kind of action that required a quick snap. By the time the VR quit doing it thing the shot was gone. I am not a pro but realized as soon as I took my first roll at a wedding, requiring no flash during the ceremony, that an f2.8 would have been a better investment. Maybe I was doing something wrong.? I am from Canada and lens prices are nuts at $900.00 it was reasonably priced but for the $1800.00cdn. the ability to get the shot, which is the whole point of the excercize, an f2.8 is the only way to go.