VR Or Not VR? That Is The Quetion

Keith W

Keith W

Messages
7,408
Edit My Images
Yes
Was wondering if fellow Nikon users thought it was worth paying extra for a VR lens?

Is there any real need for VR?

Your thoughts and opinions would be gratefully appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Take care,

Keith
 
Yes and no. It really depend on what lens and your purpose etc.

Nikon VR is very good and i certainly don't mind having it on my lens. Lets say long tele zoom i would say VR is useful to compensate your handshake and allow you to shoot with slower shutter that is beyond hand held. Short mid zoom lens i would say is nice to have if you have the money but is not must. If is couple of hundred pound different for Vr on short zoom i would give it a pass personally otherwise you might as well get VR because you never know when you need it.

If you shoot on a tripod 99% of the time i would say not worth it to get it since you will turn the VR off when shooting on a tripod.

Also VR doesn't stop motion blur.
 
Keith W said:
Was wondering if fellow Nikon users thought it was worth paying extra for a VR lens?

Is there any real need for VR?

Your thoughts and opinions would be gratefully appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Take care,

Keith
Click to expand...

Unlike Canon, I can't think of many examples where two identical lenses are offered in VR and non-VR format. The only examples I can think of are the kit zooms, the 18-55 and 55-200. I think it's universally accepted that the VR versions are better for those two. When you get further up the tree, I don't think you really have a choice, for example many pros will have a 24-70 2.8 in their bag which doesn't have VR and a 70-200 2.8 which does. No choice to make as to whether its worth paying extra for VR as there isn't an equivalent if that makes sense? You just judge each lens on its own merits.

As to whether its generally a good thing, I would say it is. I find it particularly useful on longer lenses where fast shutter speeds are particularly useful. If you mainly shoot in good light or from a tripod, maybe not so much.
 
Last edited:
MJWC1 said:
I have a flimsy tripod.

VR on or off (passing long lens)?
Click to expand...

If its that flimsy maybe better on!!! Some of the lenses can sense when they are on a tripod. Generally the advise is switch of f VR or IS.
 
There is no way I've but a lens that doesn't have VR now.

I hardly ever use a tripod / monopod, it really is an effective piece of technology!

On many occasions I have thought about buying a 80-200mm but what breaks the deal every time is the lack of VR.

Technology and it's improvements make it easier and more efficient to take the same shots with bulkier, less efficient equipment that we would have otherwise used in the past, why not take advantage of that?

Why do you need a smartphone when you can carry around a laptop, old phone & portable gaming device? Smartphones make it easier to do what you want to do more efficiently, same as optical stabilisation...for me it's a no brainer!
 
Most newer Nikon zooms have VR on them so is either buy or not buy ........ if budget is tight and you need a nikon mid zoom i.e 16-85mm VR and 18-70mm then is no brainer to pick the 18-70 because is much much cheaper and give decent quality. VR is worth to have but for that range is not end of the world specially you spend so less on a lens.

If you have the money to spend then yes go ahead and get a VR lens, otherwise if budget is tight then think back the pre VR days and pro still shoots nice photo ....
 
Phil Young said:
There is no way I've but a lens that doesn't have VR now.
Click to expand...


You'd be missing out on some great lenses. 24-70 2.8, 14-24 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 etc etc...

This is the point I was trying to make earlier, judge each lens on it's own merits. If it has VR, view it as a bonus. If it doesn't have VR but is a spanking good lens anyway...
 
I have no VR on all my lens i.e the older version 28-70 f2.8 AFS (the beast), 28, 35, 50, 135 prime. 17-50 f2.8 Tamron non VC and Sigma 70-200 f2.8 non OS. The only lens that i probably want stabilize on is the 70-200 Sigma. High chance to upgrade in the future lol. The rest is ok and not need VR for my case (should say you can't get VR on them lol except the Tamron.
 
gad-westy said:
You'd be missing out on some great lenses. 24-70 2.8, 14-24 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 etc etc...

This is the point I was trying to make earlier, judge each lens on it's own merits. If it has VR, view it as a bonus. If it doesn't have VR but is a spanking good lens anyway...
Click to expand...

Good point and I think it's fairer for me to say "past 85mm I would be reluctant to but a lens without VR".
 
for telephoto, VR is a must.

for low light zoom lenses, VR is also a must. (where max aperture sucks)

for fast primes and ultra wide angle, VR isn't as necessary. but i still wish my 35mm f1.8 have VR to allow me to shoot 1/6.
 
wuyanxu said:
for telephoto, VR is a must.

for low light zoom lenses, VR is also a must. (where max aperture sucks)

for fast primes and ultra wide angle, VR isn't as necessary. but i still wish my 35mm f1.8 have VR to allow me to shoot 1/6.
Click to expand...

I don't think VR would allow you to get away with such slow speeds, it's really only effective with minimal shake.

With such short lenses you'd probably only get a 1 stop benefit which although is nice, doesn't justify the price it would cost to installed it and resale after installation.

Possibly why Nikon haven't updated their 24-70mm.
 
The 300mm f4 is cracking lens i still buy it even with no VR lol.

The 24-70mm VR could be a pain to make, but Tamron is the first to make the 24-70 f2.8 VC which got a decent review.
 
gad-westy said:
You'd hate the 300mm f/4 then!
Click to expand...
probably, i can see myself drifting about in the view finder, so i think VR is a must. f4 isn't that much faster than f5.6.

i'm more of a wide angle man, from that perspective, i wish they'd put it in for wide angles. it would make hand held waterfall shots feasible. it's not needed, but would be nice to have.
 
In general walkaround with a wide angle you should be fine without VR since you can easily get the shutter you need. I see your point about having VR to take some waterfall shot easily.

Most landscape photography will most likely use filter i.e ND and that means tripod is needed and VR will become pointless in those situation. So thats probably why Nikon didn't put VR on some of their wide angles lens.
 
wuyanxu said:
probably, i can see myself drifting about in the view finder, so i think VR is a must. f4 isn't that much faster than f5.6.
Click to expand...

It really depends what you're shooting. If it's a bird or car or anything else that's moving pretty fast, you are going to be shooting at very high shutter speeds anyway so VR will do almost nothing for you. It may not even have the chance to kick in.

I suppose I'm trying to make the point that 'saying VR is a must' is maybe a little bit sweeping. It's useful in some scenarios, not all.
 
gad-westy said:
I suppose I'm trying to make the point that 'saying VR is a must' is maybe a little bit sweeping. It's useful in some scenarios, not all.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
gad-westy said:
It really depends what you're shooting. If it's a bird or car or anything else that's moving pretty fast, you are going to be shooting at very high shutter speeds anyway so VR will do almost nothing for you. It may not even have the chance to kick in.

I suppose I'm trying to make the point that 'saying VR is a must' is maybe a little bit sweeping. It's useful in some scenarios, not all.
Click to expand...
understood.

speaking of high shutter speed, i have read somewhere that VR samples at 1000Hz therefore anything faster than 1/500s would make VR redundant and may even have negative effect. is that true?
 
Phil Young said:
I don't think VR would allow you to get away with such slow speeds, it's really only effective with minimal shake.

With such short lenses you'd probably only get a 1 stop benefit which although is nice, doesn't justify the price it would cost to installed it and resale after installation.

Possibly why Nikon haven't updated their 24-70mm.
Click to expand...

Any thoughts on tamron releasing their 24-70vc? Although I think it's going to be around the 950 mark.

S
 
Last edited:
wuyanxu said:
understood.

speaking of high shutter speed, i have read somewhere that VR samples at 1000Hz therefore anything faster than 1/500s would make VR redundant and may even have negative effect. is that true?
Click to expand...

The reason some people say that shooting at 1/500s or faster can give blurring is that the VR system needs 2 cycles to decide what direction and degree of correction to give to the stabilisation lens. I saw this effect on the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 that I had but haven't seen it on the VR2 lens.

I spoke to Nikon service at the time (as I thought there might be something wrong with the lens) but whilst they assured me the lens was working perfectly they stopped short of confirming this "undocumented feature" existed :D

"undocumented feature" is Microsoft speak for what the rest of us call a bug :)
 
Personally, I like VR ... it's another tool in the box to be used when needed ... as I know my hands shake, but my favourite lens (24-70mm f/2.8) doesn't have it :shrug:

I can't imagine trying to get a sharp image using the long end of my Sigma 150-500mm without OS - it's hard enough with it :D
 
interesting thread, i too wish they had IS/VR on wide angle lens's i under stand that say the tokina 11-16 doesn't have it as its so wide... but what about using indoors in low light, even at 2.8 it will still be bit dark and a slower shutter speed will be needed
 
Last edited:
Sir SR said:
Any thoughts on tamron releasing their 24-70vc? Although I think it's going to be around the 950 mark.

S
Click to expand...

They saw a lens that nobody else had and produced it. They didn't have a 24-70 and nobody else has a stabilised version...made good business sense!

Any lens that has VR is going to be a better lens (assuming optics are the same) and I'm not saying this lens doesn't benefit from it, I'm just saying it probably wasn't Nikon and canon's number 1 priority to make one.

Tamron has and I've no doubt they will capitalize on that decision.
 
Lots of interesting view points and comments here guys, it has given me some food for thought.

Many thanks for all your input, it is very much appreciated.

Take care,

Keith
 
Hi Keith,
I won't get as technical as some of the others, but I will say that when I was thinking of buying a 70-300, I wasn't sure whether to pay the extra for a VR version, so I took my memory card with me to a shop and tried the same shot with the VR on, and one with it off, and although I couldn't see much difference on the screen on the camera, when I put it on the PC later there was a considerable difference, so I obviously saved a bit longer and went for the VR. I am now considering changing my 18-135 to an 18-105 just to get VR, although it probably isn't quite so important at that focal length, but as the others said, it is nice to have it. I do agree though that it is not worth having on wider angle lenses as I don't have a problem with my 35mm.
 
I had Nikon 16-85 VR which I never really got on with because I couldn't really see the benefit of shooting at 1/20 second, as motion blur was a big issue. The VR then failed and cost £160 to repair which put me off altogether.

I have since gone full frame and the only VR lens I use is the Nikon 70-200 which is much better. With this lens VR is well worth it, being able to get very sharp images at 200mm and 1/60 sec really useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top