Nikon Lens - VR or Not VR

One Moment One Shot

I am in the process of purchasing some new lens for my Nikon and wondering of the VR (Vibration Reduction) feature that comes on some of them...

How important is it to have this feature because the price difference is about doubled?

basflt

i always have it switched off
it does help to stabilize indeed , but i find is has negative effect on image quality

jww

I think it depends on what you are shooting. I use it quite a bit shooting motorsports.

basflt

jww wrote: »

I think it depends on what you are shooting. I use it quite a bit shooting motorsports.

then i have a question for you [ serious ]
does it really save you 4 stops ?
i never could figure that out

jww

basflt wrote: »

then i have a question for you [ serious ]
does it really save you 4 stops ?
i never could figure that out

lol... I never could figure that out either! I suppose if I was shooting a tree or a fence post it makes sense. ..but in what I shoot, no.. just helps me keep the shot steady during my self prescribed shooting frenzy.

To me motorsports sorta breaks the rules as it depends on what type of shot you are going for, the particular speed of car or cars can do on the portion of track you are wanting to shoot them. So I usually shoot manual, selecting the shutter speed and f stop I need for the type of shot I am attempting. I then bump the iso accordingly if dark or overcast or add a polarizer if way too bright or harsh lighting since cars reflect light so much.

Hope that makes sense!

basflt

ok , thanks

but , .....
still no answer for @One Moment One Shot

is it worth the double $$ ?

ziggy53

basflt wrote: »

then i have a question for you [ serious ]
does it really save you 4 stops ?
i never could figure that out

The "stops" of stabilization will depend on the abilities of the photographer, the subject matter, in some cases the VR settings themselves and the methodology of the shoot.

For instance, a hand-held shot of a still life subject will respond much differently than a tracking shot of a horse.

basflt

ziggy53 wrote: »

The "stops" of stabilization will depend on the abilities of the photographer, the subject matter, in some cases the VR settings themselves and the methodology of the shoot.

For instance, a hand-held shot of a still life subject will respond much differently than a tracking shot of a horse.

i know , .....

thats why i wondered if , when panning it would make a big different [ versus the 4 stops ]

ziggy53

One Moment One Shot wrote: »

I am in the process of purchasing some new lens for my Nikon and wondering of the VR (Vibration Reduction) feature that comes on some of them...

How important is it to have this feature because the price difference is about doubled?

Sometimes the stabilization is justified and sometimes it is not justified. To give you a definitive answer requires more information about the 2 lenses in question and the application for the lens (how you will use the lens.) Shooting conditions are also important, so indoors conditions are much different requirements than outdoor conditions in daylight, even for the same activity. The more information you provide the better we can advise.

One Moment One Shot

I am looking at the following lens:
AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED
AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED

I am converting from my Sony Alpha a100 and both of my lens didn't have this feature.

I don't shot fast moving shots like Motorsports or anything. I do however do sport events like Basketball, Football, etc. Also do a lot of portraits and landscape scenes.

ziggy53 wrote: »

Sometimes the stabilization is justified and sometimes it is not justified. To give you a definitive answer requires more information about the 2 lenses in question and the application for the lens (how you will use the lens.) Shooting conditions are also important, so indoors conditions are much different requirements than outdoor conditions in daylight, even for the same activity. The more information you provide the better we can advise.

cbbr

I won't buy a lens without VR if its available.... I chase kids & dogs - the VR works wonders when you (not the subject) are moving and the SS is on the low side. Think shooting basically in the dark like at a dance recital or awards ceremony. If you are panning and shooting lower SS for movement, it helps there too. I turn it off when shooting over 1/500 as I really don't find that it does anything good.

ziggy53

One Moment One Shot wrote: »

I am looking at the following lens:
AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED
AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED

I am converting from my Sony Alpha a100 and both of my lens didn't have this feature.

I don't shot fast moving shots like Motorsports or anything. I do however do sport events like Basketball, Football, etc. Also do a lot of portraits and landscape scenes.

Neither of those lenses are designed for sports/action, although either can certainly be used with some success. If you want a more reliable AF performance for indoor and night sports/action, I think you will want one of the 70-200mm, f2.8 VR lenses. The AF is much faster and more accurate, and the f2.8 aperture allows 4 - times the light (at the long end of the zoom), allowing faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO. The larger aperture also allows more DOF control when you need it.

For outdoor sports and general outdoor activities, the Nikkor 55-200mm, f4-5.6G VR DX AF-S IF-ED is a bit sharper than the non-VR version and yes, I think that the VR might be helpful for stability in tracking subjects. Add a flash for anything indoors, along with a suitable flash modifier, as necessary and as allowed.

jww

I agree with Ziggy.. the 70-200mm f2.8 VR is amazing. I saw one used being sold here on dgrin too. Not a ton of reach for some field sports (i.e other end of a soccer field), but a very sharp wonderful lens and an awesome range.

I love mine!

One Moment One Shot

Thank you for the help clarifying some of that up. I headed over to purchase the 70-200mm but that is a little out of price range at the moment so I am gonna go with the 55-200 VR at the moment.

ziggy53 wrote: »

Neither of those lenses are designed for sports/action, although either can certainly be used with some success. If you want a more reliable AF performance for indoor and night sports/action, I think you will want one of the 70-200mm, f2.8 VR lenses. The AF is much faster and more accurate, and the f2.8 aperture allows 4 - times the light (at the long end of the zoom), allowing faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO. The larger aperture also allows more DOF control when you need it.

For outdoor sports and general outdoor activities, the Nikkor 55-200mm, f4-5.6G VR DX AF-S IF-ED is a bit sharper than the non-VR version and yes, I think that the VR might be helpful for stability in tracking subjects. Add a flash for anything indoors, along with a suitable flash modifier, as necessary and as allowed.

Dan7312

I think a lot of the results stabilization produces depends on the user. One dgrinner, Icebear I think, has posted some handheld long tele shots without stabilzation and they are pretty amazing. For me I know that I just don't have that ability to hand hold a camera that stable. I haven't done any experiments to prove this, but I feel stabilization helps me when I try shooting at 1/60.

I'm sure Canon has done some kinds of tests to come up with the 4 stop number, but unless they publish the details of how the test was done it's hard to tell how things will work out in the real world or to compare stabilization features among different manufacturers.

I've always speculated that good hunters or marksmen would be good 'togs because of their eye/hand coordination, ability to see that decisive moment and the ability to hold a gun very steadily.

basflt wrote: »

i know , .....

thats why i wondered if , when panning it would make a big different [ versus the 4 stops ]

rpcrowe

I would not get a lens of this focal range without shake compensation
I've tested several of my Canon lenses (17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/4L IS and 300mm f/4L IS) with IS on and IS off. There is definitely an advantage to the IS capability but, I cannot really (nor do I care to) quantify it by number of f/stops.

I would expect that quantifying the help provided by IS (or any other camera shake deterrent) would depend entirely on:

1. Your individual ability to hand-hold the camera.
2. The amount of camera movement blur that you consider acceptable in any image.

I will say that the IS capability has increased my ability to hand hold all three lenses but, it is absolutely most important on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens.

The 17-55mm lens focal lengths do not absolutely need IS although IS capability along with the constant f/2.8 aperture makes this lens quite a viable low light glass. I don't think that IS assistance is a total necessity in this lens but, it is sure nice.

Despite the IS capability of my 300mm f/4L IS lens, I will use this lens most often either tripod mounted or on a monopod. I turn off the IS when tripod mounted however, the IS does help considerably when using a monopod.

The addition of IS capability to the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens has made a night and day difference in my shooting. I use this lens along with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens as a general purpose tele-zoom and shoot hand held in all sorts of lighting conditions. The IS has freed me from being a slave to bright light when using this lens. I use my IS version 4-5x more often than I ever was able to use the non-IS version. I can shoot down to 1/60 second with total confidence that my image will be sharp. At 1/30 second, my keeper rate goes down but, is still respectable. When shooting at ISO 800 or even ISO 400, that exposure allows shooting in some fairly low light.

I would never think about going back to a non-IS version of the 70-200mm f/4L and I can hand-hold the IS version in lower light levels than I could a 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) lens which weighs a LOT MORE than my f/4L IS version. Is it worth 2x the price of a non-IS lens? I use my IS 70-200mm f/4L IS lens 4x-5x more often that I could the non-IS copy. It is worth the extra money tome!

Dan is totally correct about the skills needed to shoot being adapted to hand-holding a camera. I have also noticed that my shooting skills have deteriorated along with my camera hand-holding ability as I age. IS (or any other shake compensation) is pretty well necessary on a camera/lens for me now that I am approaching 72 years old. I wish that pistols had IS compensation because I could continue competitive pistol shooting for a few more years.

At the risk of going astray with this post. The first camera shake compensator I ever used was the Kenyon Gyro Stabilizer.

http://www.ken-lab.com/

I used it mostly for shooting aerial motion pictures. It worked but, the darn thing was awfully heavy, took a long while to rev up and a long while to shut down. It would also fight you if you tried a fast pan. The Kenyon was great for aerial stills and great for hand holding cameras on rocking and bobbing boats except it took a pretty muscular set of hands and arms to use it under those conditions. If I were doing a lot of aerial work, I would seriously consider the kenyon


We later started using the Dyna Lens Image Stabilization system which could be used in front of any motion picture camera. I used it mostly in front of a 12-120mm Angenieux lens on a Arriflex 16mm motion picture camera. I could get vibration free imagery with the lens fully extended to 120mm. This was absolutely essential when shooting out of the open door of a helicopter while hovering.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,838939,00.html

I think that the technology was very much the same as IS or VR. It worked great but, it was very heavy and bulky and needed electric power to work.

zoomer

On my 70-200 I always have it on. Except shooting action sports in good light I turn it off.
It takes a second to settle after focus.
For me the IS would be worth the extra money, just for shooting natural light portraits. Yes it does make a LOT of difference.

Don't have it and don't need it on any of the shorter lenses.

lightyear

VR vs. no VR
Ziggy called it perfectly: it depends on the subject, ISO, and lighting, as well as your technique. When I am shooting landscapes, portraits, products,architecture, arrangements, etc. using a tripod, VR is off. If I am shooting any of the latter handheld, or action, sports, racing - as long as the camera is not rock solid, I use VR. I have tested and with identical lens/ISO/camera the image handheld is visibly sharper with VR than none-Vr, and the reverse is also true ( tripod non VR shots of static subjects are sharper than tripod VR). I have many non VR ( pre VR era) lenses as well as VR, and generally have the VR in my bag for versatility. Absolutely scheduled tripod shots use the non-VR lenses, when possible.
Stan