Nikon VR v's Non VR
- Thread starter Quaker
- Start date
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have the 18-55mm VR and I am not convinced that a a low focal range its not worth worrying about. Am I right?
Couldn't quite get my head around the double negative, but I think you're saying that VR isn't much point in a short zoom? If so, agreed.
They only put VR in the kit lens to compensate for the camera shake induced by the "hold the camera at arms length" Liveview users brigade
Its a bit more useful in the 55-200 range. Actually the 55-200 VR is a superb little lens, and I don't think its much more expensive than the older version.
So I'd get get the 55-200 VR, unless you can get the non-VR for a good price.
Couldn't quite get my head around the double negative, but I think you're saying that VR isn't much point in a short zoom? If so, agreed.
They only put VR in the kit lens to compensate for the camera shake induced by the "hold the camera at arms length" Liveview users brigade
Its a bit more useful in the 55-200 range. Actually the 55-200 VR is a superb little lens, and I don't think its much more expensive than the older version.
So I'd get get the 55-200 VR, unless you can get the non-VR for a good price.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've never given it much thought, but I hired a 18-200mm VR last weekend and I was amazed at how effective the VR, even at the wider end.
This was at 1/10sec, whilst not staggeringly sharp, it looks good enough on the large print I had done, and I can't ever remember getting so many keepers handheld at those sorts of shutter speeds before (particularly as it was very windy and hammering it down). I shot for about 4 hours in the evening without a tripod and only had a couple of blurred shots, the rest were all 'usable'.
Nikon D90, Nikon 18-200mm VR, 1/10, ISO1250
I probably wouldn't buy a lens with it as the additional cost is a little too prohibitive for me, but for those sort of walk around lens it's pretty darn good technology.
This was at 1/10sec, whilst not staggeringly sharp, it looks good enough on the large print I had done, and I can't ever remember getting so many keepers handheld at those sorts of shutter speeds before (particularly as it was very windy and hammering it down). I shot for about 4 hours in the evening without a tripod and only had a couple of blurred shots, the rest were all 'usable'.
Nikon D90, Nikon 18-200mm VR, 1/10, ISO1250
I probably wouldn't buy a lens with it as the additional cost is a little too prohibitive for me, but for those sort of walk around lens it's pretty darn good technology.
- Messages
- 2,777
- Name
- Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If price is not the issue, I'd go with a VR lens. When you need it, you need it. Even with short lenses, VR can be handy. It will never cost you a shot; it might save that "once-in-a-lifetime" shot.
- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I go with Hunter.....if you have it you can use it, if you don't you can't!
The VR opens up a whole load of new opportunites for creativeness - even with short lenses. It isn't just to combat camera shake on long toms you know.......how about slow shutter panning at a concert, or dog track? You can use the slow shutter not just to combat low light, but also for creative effect.
The VR opens up a whole load of new opportunites for creativeness - even with short lenses. It isn't just to combat camera shake on long toms you know.......how about slow shutter panning at a concert, or dog track? You can use the slow shutter not just to combat low light, but also for creative effect.