To VR Or Not To VR

Bryce Wilson

Soon, I am going to add a fast zoom to my lens collection. The choices are down to the Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 or the 70-200mm VR II.

On careful consideration, at this time I am leaning toward the 80-200. My reasoning on this is that with the type of shooting I will be using this lens for, the VR really isn't going to bring anything to the table for me to make the other choice worth the extra 1,000.00 plus price tag.

Here's the rub though. Although the manner in which I am going to use this lens NOW makes the VR mute, should I decide to purchase the new D-800 in the future and want to take advantage of the video capabilities, will I be kicking myself in the rump for not getting the 70-200 VRII.

Does the VR bring more to the table when shooting video than it does for still images?

zoomer

Look at the VRI.
You will kick yourself for not getting the VR. Especially if you shoot portraits.

Bryce Wilson

zoomer wrote: »

Look at the VRI.
You will kick yourself for not getting the VR. Especially if you shoot portraits.

I have looked at the VR I, but from many reports, it doesn't perform as perfectly on FX as it does on DX.

Using the lens primarily for indoor low light sports and dance where the shutter speed will be in the 500 neighborhood, as well as some outdoor portraiture, what exactly is the VR giving me that I need.

zoomer

Why do you think your shutter speed will be 500 shooting at 200mm indoors? That place must be Briiighht.
VR isn't going to help you much indoors with moving subjects where panning won't take the movement out.....or if you primarily shoot portraits with flash.

If you shoot outdoor portraits at midday you don't need VR.

Late in the evening, natural light portraits you will want VR.
I have shot many thousands of portraits with the VR1 version on FX, amazing portrait lens. I have never noticed any problem with vignetting.
I always leave it on when shooting portraits but the only time the VR is invaluable is late in the evening, which is when I normally shoot portraits.

Bryce Wilson

zoomer wrote: »

Why do you think your shutter speed will be 500 shooting at 200mm indoors? That place must be Briiighht.
VR isn't going to help you much indoors with moving subjects where panning won't take the movement out.....or if you primarily shoot portraits with flash.

If you shoot outdoor portraits at midday you don't need VR.

Late in the evening, natural light portraits you will want VR.
I have shot many thousands of portraits with the VR1 version on FX, amazing portrait lens. I have never noticed any problem with vignetting.
I always leave it on when shooting portraits but the only time the VR is invaluable is late in the evening, which is when I normally shoot portraits.

OK thanks that helps. In hockey, really need 500 to freeze the puck movement. In dance, to freeze a leap. Most likely won't be at 200 mm all that much but most of the shots taken in those environments will be of the panning variety.

I understand the value of the VR for low light portraits and can live with not having it on the very few occasions that I will be in that situation.

Now the question is how important is the VR when shooting video?

zoomer

I am not a video shooter, have you done much of it.

I do know that the main thing is that the subject has to be still within it's relationship to the frame....VR will definitely help with that on unmoving subjects if you are shooting handheld.

Hopefully someone with more video experience will jump in here.

jonh68

There are a couple of reasons to pick the VRII over the VRI, but the myth of the VRI not as good on FX isn't oen of them, especially if you shoot portraits. I love shooting portraits on my D700 and D3s with the VRI.

In regards to VR for video, it will not do much in the way of a steady cam. Better off using a tripod or monopod for video.

TopCat

Bryce Wilson wrote: »

...will I be kicking myself in the rump for not getting the 70-200 VRII.

Does the VR bring more to the table when shooting video than it does for still images?

Get this lens rather than the 80-200 if you can in any way swing it, because this (70-200 VRII) will be the finest lens you have ever used!

Art Scott

I am not much of a VR user myself...almost all of my shooting is off tripod, jammed against a tree trunk, off the hood/trunk of a car... and so stable that the VR causes blur...so I don't shoot with it much...I do however buy VR lenses, when available because the resell value is higher.... then again I shoot a lot of old manual focus lenses, I do not do video so have no weigh in on that.

Good Luck.

Bryce Wilson

Thanks for the input folks.

I'm still on the fence with this. I could get the 80-200 right now and be using it or do I wait until I can swing the other....

Decisions, decisions.....

I'll let ya know.

angevin1

Bryce Wilson wrote: »

Soon, I am going to add a fast zoom to my lens collection. The choices are down to the Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 or the 70-200mm VR II.

On careful consideration, at this time I am leaning toward the 80-200. My reasoning on this is that with the type of shooting I will be using this lens for, the VR really isn't going to bring anything to the table for me to make the other choice worth the extra 1,000.00 plus price tag.

Here's the rub though. Although the manner in which I am going to use this lens NOW makes the VR mute, should I decide to purchase the new D-800 in the future and want to take advantage of the video capabilities, will I be kicking myself in the rump for not getting the 70-200 VRII.

Does the VR bring more to the table when shooting video than it does for still images?

What will you be shooting video of?

angevin1

Bryce Wilson wrote: »

Thanks for the input folks.

I'm still on the fence with this. I could get the 80-200 right now and be using it or do I wait until I can swing the other....

Decisions, decisions.....

I'll let ya know.

You asked about video and I replied.

But this statement here doesn't seem like much of a dilemma, nor a hard one to put away. Get the lens, use it now. The 80-200mm Nikkor and in it's three iterations are all stellar. I had it before I had the VR2. The VR2 spoiled the H outta me and I wouldn't want anything other if I had a choice and was making a choice. But your choice to forgo the 80-200 that you could use now is not a great choice. Most folks will always recommend a stellar lens that you need now and can afford over waiting. That waiting part is the unknown variable.

I got rid of my 80-200 only because I got the VR2~

I'd rather talk video~

Bryce Wilson

angevin1 wrote: »

You asked about video and I replied.

But this statement here doesn't seem like much of a dilemma, nor a hard one to put away. Get the lens, use it now. The 80-200mm Nikkor and in it's three iterations are all stellar. I had it before I had the VR2. The VR2 spoiled the H outta me and I wouldn't want anything other if I had a choice and was making a choice. But your choice to forgo the 80-200 that you could use now is not a great choice. Most folks will always recommend a stellar lens that you need now and can afford over waiting. That waiting part is the unknown variable.

I got rid of my 80-200 only because I got the VR2~

I'd rather talk video~

Regarding video....

I haven't done much video work in my life. The most "video" work I've ever done was as a camera man for a PBS station back in (cough) '77 and '78. The studio camera I used had three prime lenses that you had to rotate.

The video thought was just me thinking ahead. It (video) would be fun, I have a top notch editing program just sitting here and as fast as the image world is changing, video may indeed become an important and even necessary component of photography services in the future.

But you are right, I will worry about that if and when the time comes. I have decided that at most I will only loose about 200.00 when reselling the 80 - 200. In the grand scheme of things, that is a small price to pay to use a lens I want and really need now.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

fjcvisual

I just went through a similar decision. My VR II will arrive today, and I waited to get it for some time. Having said that I had a 80-200 that had treated me well for many years. My decision came down to a newer non VR 70-200 or the 70-200 VRII. My understanding is that this lens AF performance is the best Nikon has turned out for this series which is important to me. Technically, as I understand it, it is slightly better optically then the previous versions, not that the other's are substandard, just that Nikon continues to improve this lens. You can always turn the VR off. If it was a matter of waiting a little while I would wait. If you need to wait a long time, I would get the non VR since Nikon glass holds its value pretty well.

If a teleconverter is on your list I think there may be some compatibility issues with the older versions of the lens, although someone else might be better informed on that than I.

novicesnapper

Ditto to Zoomer. You may not use it now, but after you get it, you'll find you love it, having IS (Canon) on my lens is sooo nice. If you can afford the price difference, I say go for it for handheld still shots. On my vid mode, IS doesn't mean anything, steady smooth moves are still needed.

Jamesbjenkins

The function and the image quality of either version of the 70-200 VR are noticeably better than the 80-200. The push-pull operation of the 80-200 is extremely annoying IMO. I really hate it. The traditional dedicated ring for both focus and focal length is much better.

You'll pay more for the 70-200, but it's well worth it. As for the V1 being less than spectacular on FX, in my experience that's not accurate. Other than some minor vignetting (which is easily fixed in post) it works beautifully on both DX and FX.

IMO, if you get the 80-200, you'll regret it.

MileHighAko

Bryce - what did you end up getting? Still trying to decide?

I'll +1 the recommendation for the 70-200 VRII. I have it - and no matter what new lens I get, it seems to get the most use. It is just one spectacular piece of glass.

As to the VR or not VR discussion - I find VR very helpful when shooting portraits outdoors.

Good luck.

Bryce Wilson

Jamesbjenkins wrote: »

The function and the image quality of either version of the 70-200 VR are noticeably better than the 80-200. The push-pull operation of the 80-200 is extremely annoying IMO. I really hate it. The traditional dedicated ring for both focus and focal length is much better.

You'll pay more for the 70-200, but it's well worth it. As for the V1 being less than spectacular on FX, in my experience that's not accurate. Other than some minor vignetting (which is easily fixed in post) it works beautifully on both DX and FX.

IMO, if you get the 80-200, you'll regret it.

The "push-pull" model wasn't on my radar. I was looking at the two ring model.

MileHighAko wrote: »

Bryce - what did you end up getting? Still trying to decide?

I'll +1 the recommendation for the 70-200 VRII. I have it - and no matter what new lens I get, it seems to get the most use. It is just one spectacular piece of glass.

As to the VR or not VR discussion - I find VR very helpful when shooting portraits outdoors.

Good luck.

I just didn't have the extra 1800.00 right now. The boy's college bills are killing me. I decided to go with the 80-200, I found a nice one locally for 600.00. I most likely can sell that for what I paid for it when I have the extra 2000.00.

I'm also exploring the Sigma. It seems to have very good reviews and with a 1300.00 price point, I feel it is worth a look.

angevin1

Bryce Wilson wrote: »

I decided to go with the 80-200, I found a nice one locally for 600.00.

Ah so. Great find! And photos to follow, right?!

Bryce Wilson

angevin1 wrote: »

Ah so. Great find! And photos to follow, right?!

Yup, next outdoor "people" shoot, the lens will get used!

lifeinfocus

D800 and Set of Lenses
Bryce, I too am analyzing lenses. Also, I am pricing and agonizing whether to buy a used D700 or new D800.

i suspect I will buy the D800 as you did or are.

My photography to this point has been outdoors sports, lots of indoor grade school and church events, outdoor flower gardens/flowers, some bird photography and some outdoor portraits. I am preparing to do indoor portraits.

I also do videos from photos/text/graphics/videos/voice over.

I too live in Michigan BTW.

So, my question to you is if you have a similar set of photography pursuits - what lenses will you use?

I am interested in 50MM 1.4, the 80-200mm lens and not sure about a short zoom for indoor kids e
vents - say 18 to 105 DX?, which I own and also have the 70-300mm FX lens, which worked well for outdoor sports.

I have noted your great indoor children photography.

Thanks

Phil