VR Lens for Nikon

rbrugman

I am debating getting the Nikkor 55-200mm VR or the 70-300mm VR for my new D80. Right now I have the kit 18-135mm lens which is all I really need, but I would like the VR feature because at 135mm I am a bit unsteady. My questions should really be "Is the extra 100mm worth the extra $200?" Right now I don't think I need anything more than 200mm, but in the future there might be something out there a bit more than I would like to get.


Thanks for the advice,
Robert

HoofClix

Robert, the VR function on these lenses is designed to minimize the effect on the image caused by the vibration of the shutter as it functions. While your hand is probably steadier than you think, what it sounds like you want to fix is your technique, in how you hold the camera while panning, with your arms tight to your body. BUT, those VR lenses sure are nice anyway!

dancorder

Mark, I think you're wrong there, the VR is designed to compensate for hand movement so that at low shutter speeds you can still get a sharp shot. If you've used a VR lens you'll notice that if you half press the shutter your hands seems to get magically steadier. I agree that improved technique will also help though.

Robert, for what it's worth I've only got lenses up to 200mm and there are occaissions where I've wanted more. However with long zooms the quality often falls off at the long end. I've not used either of those lenses myself but you could take a look at these as a starting point:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_55200_456vr/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_70300_4556vr/index.htm

BRATCH

rbrugman wrote:

I am debating getting the Nikkor 55-200mm VR or the 70-300mm VR for my new D80. Right now I have the kit 18-135mm lens which is all I really need, but I would like the VR feature because at 135mm I am a bit unsteady. My questions should really be "Is the extra 100mm worth the extra $200?" Right now I don't think I need anything more than 200mm, but in the future there might be something out there a bit more than I would like to get.


Thanks for the advice,
Robert

You might want to factor in digital magnification into the equation.

I'm assuming you are shooting digital. The 55-200 VR lens is a DX format lens which is Nikon's digital format. The 70-300 VR, assuming I'm looking at the right one on adorama.com, is a standard film lens.

With the 70-300 being a film lens, there is a 50 percent magnification factor when you attach it to a digital SLR camera. That makes the 70-300 closer to 105-450mm.

I'd say that it's a darn handy lens, but if you were thinking that 300 was too long, 450 is way long.

If it doesn't say that it is a DX format lens you need to factor in the magnification. A 200mm lens will get you around 300mm, but most of Nikon's 200mm VR lenses are high dollar super lenses.

ziggy53

BRATCH wrote:

...

If it doesn't say that it is a DX format lens you need to factor in the magnification. A 200mm lens will get you around 300mm, but most of Nikon's 200mm VR lenses are high dollar super lenses.

I have yet to see a DX format lens marked or marketed as other than its real focal length. DX lenses need to be multiplied by the same 1.5x crop factor to understand their "effective" focal length when used on a crop imager.

The thing that optically distinguishes DX lenses, and other "crop" lenses, is their smaller image circle which does not cover the full frame imagers and film.

rbrugman

The thing I'm most after is to reduce the slightly blurry shots I sometimes get when shooting at 75mm or highe. I know its simply do to a sligt shake, but some of the shots are either shoot-or-miss, and usually I tend to miss them unless I crank the shutter speed up a bit.

It would be real nice to have some extra money and get the 18-200mm VRII. It's supposed to be awesome but it's also almost as much as I paid for my camera, so right now I'm looking for something to compliment my 18-135. In the end I'd either like to have the 18-200 with a 50mm f/1.8D or the 18-135, some VR lens and then the 50 - I just don't know which one to get yet. The 55-200 is running about $200-250 while the 70-300 is about another $150 on top of that.

HoofClix

Well, I can say that I have not personally experienced any effective magic steadying of the hand when using a VR lens on any of my Nikons, film or digital, but it might be that it's meant for that. My primary use for it has been in taking very high shutter speed shots. I've shot photos off the back of a boat, where the VR is recommended, in what is called "Active VR mode," and I've seen no difference in the photos when leaving it off vs. on... Same from an airplane. My primary weapon is the 70-200 f2.8 VR, and here is the link to Nikon: http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2139

Also, Ziggy is correct, if the Nikon lens says 55mm, then the focal length of the lens is 55mm, regardless of whether it is a DX or not. The DX lens series is specially designed to bring the light as perpendicularly as possible into the sensor. At wider apertures, the light from a standard lens will come into the well at such an oblique angle that it won't even make it to the bottom of the well. The DX lenses also throw all of the light onto a space the size of the Nikon sensor, approximately 23mm instead of the 35mm that we are used to using with film. (If you use a DX lens on a Nikon film camera, you will get unexposed edges! I've tried it!) Conversely, if you use the 70-200 VR, it will properly expose 35mm film, but just not record the "outer 12mm" when using the DX.

Robert, just guessing here, but if your images are centered, then my suspicion is that you are shooting moving subjects with too slow a shutter speed. Try making sure that your camera is set really fast, say at 1/640 or higher. Pan by swiveling your hips instead of your arms! Let us know!

Phyxius

I love my VR lens! It allows you to handhold a rather heavy lens at long focal lengths and with slow shutter speeds.

Example :

Capitol Building down Pennsylvania Ave from 15th St.
1/13 F2.8 160mm

No way could I have gotten that with a regular lens unless I had it on a tripod or other stablizing structure. This was just a quick lift camera, focus, snapshot.

I love it (Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR)for sports too because it is SO sharp and I don't have to worry about camera shake.

rbrugman

I'm going to say the 55-200 is probably all I need aside from a nice fast prime like the 50mm. The 70-200 (and 18-200) VR's are a bit out of my price range. I'm not a pro photographer by any means so I think I'll just get the 55-200 until I am a little better skill wise.

HoofClix

Robert, if you're still up over there across the pond, why not post one of the photos that you have issue with, and folks besides me will know if your problem is lens shake or shutter speed. I guess I approached your question from the standpoint of really trying to understand your issue before recommending a direction..... (I don't want to cause us to stray from the thread!)

Christinia, Nice shot! It does look plenty clear! And I also love my 70-200VR for the show-ring just as much, but also often use the older 80-200 AFS. Both have the same ED glass that make the picture sharp. You might do a little experiment by taking that same shot, or a similar one, at 1/13s, then adust your shutter to 1/60s, turn the VR off, and take another one. You might have to adjust the photo's brightness, but a close inspection of the originals should be about the same. I think you are holding your lens a lot steadier than you give yourself credit. Holding an entire lens steadily is not exactly the same as preventing the internal vibrations that cause blur, that the VR is designed to do. I have spent time on the phone with "Nikon," and have not really had a straight explanation.

Meanwhile, all of this has given me an idea for an experiment that might result in a different thread!

rbrugman

I looked for a bit when I got home but I don't seem to have any good examples on my computer or my smugmug, but I never had a whole lot to begin with. I find that if I increase the shutter speed the problem is even less. The time I get it the most is when I'm shooting when its getting dark using slow shutter. I suppose I could increase the ISO and the shutter speed or I could just use a tripod. When I'm out in the daylight and can use a fast shutter it seems to work fine for me. If I get a chance tomorrow I'll go out and take a couple test shots.

Thanks for the help,
Robert

Mitchell

HoofClix wrote:

Christinia, Nice shot! It does look plenty clear! And I also love my 70-200VR for the show-ring just as much, but also often use the older 80-200 AFS. Both have the same ED glass that make the picture sharp. You might do a little experiment by taking that same shot, or a similar one, at 1/13s, then adust your shutter to 1/60s, turn the VR off, and take another one. You might have to adjust the photo's brightness, but a close inspection of the originals should be about the same. I think you are holding your lens a lot steadier than you give yourself credit. Holding an entire lens steadily is not exactly the same as preventing the internal vibrations that cause blur, that the VR is designed to do. I have spent time on the phone with "Nikon," and have not really had a straight explanation.

Meanwhile, all of this has given me an idea for an experiment that might result in a different thread!

Mark,
I don't think you fully understand the capability of the VR function on these lenses. You have discovered the intended use for the "Active Mode" which is used when the shooter is on an unstable platform (like a boat).

The regular VR mode is intended to help prevent blur from camera shake at low shutter speeds. This effectively gives you a few more stops at lower speeds yet still maintains a clear image. Theoretically, you should be able to hold your 70-200mm lens steady for anything faster than 1/200. Below this shutterspeed, the VR becomes quite helpful. Christina's pic is a fine example.

Using the VR function at fast shutterspeeds is pretty worthless and can result in blurry photos as the lens "settles" in VR function. When I shoot with a 70-200mm VR lens for high speed sports like soccer with shutterspeeds 1/1000 or better, I turn the VR off.

Hope this helps.

Mitchell

rbrugman wrote:

I am debating getting the Nikkor 55-200mm VR or the 70-300mm VR for my new D80. Right now I have the kit 18-135mm lens which is all I really need, but I would like the VR feature because at 135mm I am a bit unsteady. My questions should really be "Is the extra 100mm worth the extra $200?" Right now I don't think I need anything more than 200mm, but in the future there might be something out there a bit more than I would like to get.


Thanks for the advice,
Robert

I've heard nothing but good things about the 70-300mm VR lens. It is probably worth the extra dollars. You may not think you have any use for the extra reach, but once you have it, I bet you will wind up using it.

I'm not quite clear on what low light shooting you will be doing. The best options for you for indoor, low light shooting is a 50mm, f1.8 lens for $100.

rbrugman

Mitchell wrote:

I've heard nothing but good things about the 70-300mm VR lens. It is probably worth the extra dollars. You may not think you have any use for the extra reach, but once you have it, I bet you will wind up using it.

I'm not quite clear on what low light shooting you will be doing. The best options for you for indoor, low light shooting is a 50mm, f1.8 lens for $100.

Mitchell,
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to look into getting the 70-300 when it comes time for me to get a new lens. I was planning on getting the 50mm f1.8 anyway. I had one for my Canon and it came in handy in a lot of cases. For telephoto though, I think I'll wait until Christmas and get the 70-300.

Thanks,
Robert

BRATCH

ziggy53 wrote:

I have yet to see a DX format lens marked or marketed as other than its real focal length. DX lenses need to be multiplied by the same 1.5x crop factor to understand their "effective" focal length when used on a crop imager.

The thing that optically distinguishes DX lenses, and other "crop" lenses, is their smaller image circle which does not cover the full frame imagers and film.

I stand corrected. I never really gave it much thought about the DX 1.5x being a crop factor since everywhere I had read about it called it a "magnification" factor.

It doesn't really affect me either way, a lens is a lens is a lens as long as you're shooting digital.

As far as dropping the cash for the VR is sound like all we are looking for in this case is some light. If VR gets it, great, if you have to drop a grand for a 2.8 lens, great. Problem solved either way.

I'd like to put this point out there. It's pretty much getting to the point now where using the excuse of "I'm not paying more for a lens than I did for my camera" is just about out the window. DSLR camera technology is advancing every day, but lenses are good old fashioned glass and metal.

I shoot sports with an 80-200 2.8 and the sharpness is amazing. It weighs about as much as 4 camera bodies, but it is an unbelievable lens. And the lenses will outlive the cameras many times over.

rbrugman

BRATCH wrote:

I stand corrected. I never really gave it much thought about the DX 1.5x being a crop factor since everywhere I had read about it called it a "magnification" factor.

It doesn't really affect me either way, a lens is a lens is a lens as long as you're shooting digital.

As far as dropping the cash for the VR is sound like all we are looking for in this case is some light. If VR gets it, great, if you have to drop a grand for a 2.8 lens, great. Problem solved either way.

I'd like to put this point out there. It's pretty much getting to the point now where using the excuse of "I'm not paying more for a lens than I did for my camera" is just about out the window. DSLR camera technology is advancing every day, but lenses are good old fashioned glass and metal.

I shoot sports with an 80-200 2.8 and the sharpness is amazing. It weighs about as much as 4 camera bodies, but it is an unbelievable lens. And the lenses will outlive the cameras many times over.

I agree with you. When you buy an SLR, you are buying into the family of lenses more than just the camera. The body will probably be "outdated" technically in a couple years. That's not to say that it won't take just as great of photos then as it does now, it's just that there will be a new model like there is with every other product.

That said, the cost issue comes into play. I bought the D80 as a nice starter camera to buy into the Nikon brand with. From there I could buy a lot of really nice lenses, but as a student I have to live with what I have. That's why I'm trying to find a nice series of a couple lenses (18-135, 70-300, 50mm) to fill the range. I know they are not nice f2.8 zooms or anything but I just don't have $3k to drop on a couple lenses and a camera. Maybe next year I can but for right now I'm just trying to cover all my bases, and I need to do it before I go back to Europe because if I have to pay 400 Euro as opposed to 400 USD, I'll be twice as poor as I am now ;-)

Robert

HoofClix

Mitchell wrote:

Mark,
I don't think you fully understand the capability of the VR function on these lenses. You have discovered the intended use for the "Active Mode" which is used when the shooter is on an unstable platform (like a boat).

quote]

Thanks, Mitchell... I don't think it's that I don't understand the capability of the VR lens, at least as it's intended, its that I haven't had any exprience in "Active Mode" in which I could really notice that it made a difference. Other folks are chiming in with the ones that I haven't had! By the Nikon specs it will give you an extra 3 stops, which is why I suggested to Christina that she take that shot at 1/60s with the VR turned off to see what the difference will be.

I also have the 70-300 VR, and for me it's inadequate for three reasons. First, as I shoot mostly horses going in circles, mostly panning shots, the 70-300 is simply too light to have momentum, so it's hard to keep the horse centered. Second, at f4.0, it's just not fast enough for the early morning. Third (and maybe this is where I should give the VR a chance) at 250-300mm I think that the lens loses it's integrity, not only blurring the photo but distorting it.

Robert, when you get a better chance, take some photos and see what you learn. Hope we haven't blown you away!

LilleG

I have the 18-200 VRII and while, as others have noted, it doesn't (nor was it really designed to) give me sharper images at adequate speeds, it does increase my ability to capture acceptable images at the slower speeds required in low light situations. That said, go for the 70-300! There are times that you will certainly want the extra 100mm. I like having one walk-around lens but there are times when 200mm just isn't quite enough.