To VR or not VR

[Rovers_Andy]

I know this is an equipment question but its to do specifically with wildlife photography.

I can't see any need for VR when a lens is mounted on a decent tripod and gimbal head?

I'm looking at the 600MM F/4 AFS-II (Nikon) and trying to decide if its worth shelling out the extra for VR.

From what i have seen it isn't really a handholdable lens, so what benefit would VR have?

Thanks

Andy

 

[OutLore]

I know this is an equipment question but its to do specifically with wildlife photography.

Is there any need for VR when a lens is mounted on a decent tripod and gimbal head?

I'm looking at the 600MM F/4 AFS-II (Nikon) and trying to decide if its worth shelling out the extra for VR.

From what i have seen it isn't really a handholdable lens, so what benefit would VR have?

Thanks

Andy

Nikon state that VR should be turned off when tripod mounted.

You're right about the 600 not really being "hand holdable" though. Not sure - maybe the guys and gals at Nikon are muscle bound?

Edit: I think VRII has a "tripod mode" which should be enabled I suppose (I don't have any VRII lenses)

 

[fracster]

600 is hand holdable, easy for you Andy, you ain`t a puny guy..............

VR............waste of brass for most applications.

 

[Rovers_Andy]

600 is hand holdable, easy for you Andy, you ain`t a puny guy..............

VR............waste of brass for most applications.

Thats what i'm thinking, can't say i've used it once on the 400, even when we did the Pere's

of course i'm really trying to get someone to make my mind up for me

 

[hollis_f]

Can't say anything about Nikon's VR on big lenses, but the IS on Canon's 500mm f4 was invaluable when it was on a tripod. It would do a great job of smoothing out the vibrations that are inevitable if you've got your hand on such a long lens when shooting.