Is VR really worth the difference?

gramps

gramps

Messages
42,148
Name
'Gramps'
Edit My Images
No
Looking at 2nd hand prices there is a vast difference between VR and non-VR for some lenses. For example the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 will go from anything between £500 - £800 whereas the 70-200 f/2.8 with VR goes for anything between £900 and £1200 and VRII even more.
Obviously, for handheld, VR will help but is it really worth the difference in cost?
 
Depends on whether you have a use for it or not, remember though most 80-200 are AF-D not AF-S, so you need to take that into account. An AF-S 80-200 will only be around £150 less than a 70-200 VR. If you don't need VR or AF-S though the 80-200 AF-D is a total bargain of a lens...
 
Id say in those examples yes.
The 70-200 VR is a beast of a lens. Stunningly sharp. Have not had experience of the 80-200.

I found the VR very usefull and infact now I have the canon 70-200 f/4, Im really wishing I went for the IS version.

Think of it like this, the 50mm 1.8 is £70.
The 50mm 1.4 is a hell of a lot more.. Why? because you get those extra stops. The same goes for VR.
 
VR11 on the 70-200mm is amazing - I can hand hold down to 1/15th sec at 200mm - couldn't come close to that without VR.
 
The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR lens is my workhorse of a lens, and is worth every penny that it cost me. And for low light hand held shots and sporting events it is just great. But if you are only into landscape work with shorter lens, then VR is probably not so important as you will be using a tripod anyway.
 
You can't compare the 80-200 and 70-200 in my opinion. The only real comparison you could do is 2 lenses that are the same specification, one with VR and one without.

You would also struggle to get an 80-200AFS for £500, but would find an AFD in that price range - so if you're comparing the 80-200AFD with the 70-200AFS, there's more than just VR as an improvement.

The 18-55 and 55-200 and their VR equivalents are more of a closer comparison, and their prices are a lot closer, although they are 10% of the price in the first place!!!
 
I have in body stabilisation (SOny a900) and earlier this year I was shooting night shots in Tokyo as low as 1/20th and there was no shake in the shots, it really makes a difference.

VR and the ability to change ISO at will are the two main advantages over film for me.
 
I'd rather having a decent tripod than spending my money on VR lenses :D
 
intotherainbow said:
I'd rather having a decent tripod than spending my money on VR lenses :D
Click to expand...

TBH that was the direction of my thinking, I guess it does depend on what you use the lens for, if it's a lot of hand-held it will make a difference but it does seem quite a large cost increase for the privilege.
Also what's with VRI and now VRII ... does that mean they got it wrong in VRI - sounds like Windows Vista/Windows 7 !
 
well VR isn't really meant to be used when you're tripod mounted but i'm sure you know that already :)

VR is definitely worth having if you shoot handheld a lot & its definitely going to improve your hit rate;)

what i'd like to know is how much better is VRII over VR? :naughty:
 
Great minds! :)
 
Another vote for VR / IS.

It'd be great if every lens had it.... Now, where can I buy a 50mm f1.4 IS?
 
intotherainbow said:
I'd rather having a decent tripod than spending my money on VR lenses :D
Click to expand...

well then you wouldn't get the shots I get! :)

BTW I have a decent tripod as well - but not for the same occasions!
 
Last edited:
So why VRII ?
 
because it's better than VR1! Is your house not better than a cave? Progress!
 
So VRI is a cave?
 
you'll never know unless you try it.
 
If VR1 is to VR2 is as Ghostbusters is to Ghostbusters 2, surely we should stick with VR1? Just sayin' :p
 
I have a VR1 and NEVER use the VR bit as test after test has shown it to make no difference - but then I am pretty still anyway

As it only helps with YOUR movement, if you are still too then you won't benefit much if at all - finally, a decent monopod is a fraction of the price difference and takes the weight off your back/neck too if using it a while - which can save even more in Chiropractor fees :D


And awp - what the hell do you shoot that needs 200mm and doesn't move sufficiently for a sharp shot at 1/15th sec :thinking::shrug:

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
And awp - what the hell do you shoot that needs 200mm and doesn't move sufficiently for a sharp shot at 1/15th sec :thinking::shrug:

DD
Click to expand...

Theatre production shots - low light levels - actors under my control.
 
vibration reduction is very worthwhile for me. i never take a tripod out unless i know i'm really going to need it. if you use a tripod all the time then theres not much point having it.
 
gramps said:
......Also what's with VRI and now VRII ... does that mean they got it wrong in VRI .....
Click to expand...

The VRII is supposed to give an extra stop of stabilisation over the VRI (4 stops instead of 3) so you should be better off handheld. Add in the other advantages (shorter, sharper, less distortion, less vignetting) and the VRII must be worth the extra £££'s over the VRI.

(VRII - cheapest new price I can find is £1,599, call it £400 more than a used but mint VRI).
 
Last edited:
VRii is excellent on the 70-200mm, remember though that the VR is far from the only difference in those lenses
 
boyfalldown said:
VRii is excellent on the 70-200mm, remember though that the VR is far from the only difference in those lenses
Click to expand...

Care to explain what the actual differences are?
 
OK, I'm sure others can come up with more. aside from the VR

80-200 2.8. AF-D lens, no VR, older version of the lens, no modern coatings. Most examples 10 years old now.

70-200 VRi. AF-S lens. Fast focusing, improved coatings, some issues with vignetting on full frame wide open. Last generation lens that will affect values.

70-200 VRii. Very fast focusing, no issues with vignetteing on FX, newest coatings, better handling then the previous version. Neweest lens so will have an affect on 2nd hand values

How important these are is of course up to you

Hugh
 
Last edited:
Thanks, that is very helpful, I was unaware of the vignetting problems - does this mean that VRi is best suited to DX then?
 
gramps said:
Thanks, that is very helpful, I was unaware of the vignetting problems - does this mean that VRi is best suited to DX then?
Click to expand...

Some people say it is. I never found the vignetting to be a big issue on the VRi, but thats just for the stuff I shoot. On DX the VRi is a beast
 
Thanks again.
 
boyfalldown said:
OK, I'm sure others can come up with more. aside from the VR

80-200 2.8. AF-D lens, no VR, older version of the lens, no modern coatings. Most examples 10 years old now.

70-200 VRi. AF-S lens. Fast focusing, improved coatings, some issues with vignetting on full frame wide open. Last generation lens that will affect values.

70-200 VRii. Very fast focusing, no issues with vignetteing on FX, newest coatings, better handling then the previous version. Neweest lens so will have an affect on 2nd hand values

How important these are is of course up to you

Hugh
Click to expand...

You missed the 80-200 AFS... (y)

And didn't they make the 80-200AFD until quite recently?
 
boyfalldown said:
its very hard to find though :D



no idea, but why would you buy one new with the 70-200 VRi out there ?
Click to expand...

I agree, the AFS is like hens teeth...

I guess you'd buy one as they were 1/2 the price of the 70-200 at one point, yet still new. Could just have been a load of old stock though.
 
VR..worth it ? Not for me, I shoot a lot of equine events. I use back button focusing. VR is only engaged via the shutter button. This means it had milli-seconds to engage, not worth even trying. It's never gonna catch up. I leave it switched off.
I guess for static subjects in low light it would be useful. Even if you back button focus a half press of the shutter button will engage it. Best of both worlds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top