VR lenses - your opinion?

[aliceat41]

I've posted another thread about choosing a camera, part of the equation is whether or not having experienced a VR lens, I'm going to be spoiled for non VR lenses? How good is the VR feature? I'm a wobbly amateur at mo and think that it will help me a lot at first, will I get less reliant on it as I get better? My common sense thinks that as I get better, I will manage fine without, but what do you all think about VR? Thanks.

P.S. I dont tend to use tripods, I do have a mini one that I dont mind lugging about but I usually just prop it on my chest (sometimes big boobs are handy!) as I tend towards quick fire shots and don't do landscapes or macro much at all. However, I've yet to experience a longer lens than my kit 18-55 so am totally in the dark about what it's like shooting up to 200mm (the lens I'm looking at).

[TheMoons678]

For anything above 55mm I would get VR.

VR isnt THAT necessary on the 18-55mm, but is for the 55-200mm or 70-300mm.

[sk66]

IMO, VR is like a "safety net"....I actually seldom use it for the type of shots/subjects I work with but it's occasionally nice to have.

[jdepould]

I like it. It's one of those things that you're never really sure if the shot would be any different without it, but if the lens has it, there isn't a huge battery penalty for using it.

The biggest thing for me is viewfinder stabilization on the long primes (300, 400+), it makes a huge difference in focusing and composition, even if your shutter speed is ultimately high enough that VR doesn't affect the capture.

[inkista]

For me IS (I'm a Canon shooter. We call it IS ) is a "nice to have" but not a "have to have", unless, as others are saying, you're shooting very long focal lengths and want to use a slower shutter speed. I handhold a 400mm f/5.6 prime that is NOT stabilized, and most of the time I'm fine with it, as I'm shooting birds in flight and using a shutter speed faster than 1/focal_length, anyways (to freeze action). It's only at the zoo in aviaries when I start cursing and have to lug along a monopod that I wish I had IS in the lens. But a monopod stabilizeds just as well as IS/VR does, is a lot cheaper, and can be used with all your lenses. So there are other ways to accomplish the same thing.

One thing I would say is that IS/VR is no substitute for a) a tripod or b) learning good handholding technique. You really want to learn how to hold your camera, even if you have a VR lens. If you're holding your camera by the left and right edges, or your left hand is on top of your lens, you're not doing it right.

[TEOG]

Thank you for the link on how to hold the camera. My new Sigma 105mm lens is manual focus with my Nikon and this is helpful.

[mbrobich]

You do lose a bit of speed for your capture(as the lens has to stabilise before it allows the click) but is worth it on long(zoomed) shots. For portraits, it is not needed.

If you can practise your breathing and control it very well, you can do without for long shots.

I only own 2 lenses with VR, 1 being a Sigma 150-500 and the other the Nikon 70-300VR2.

I actually think if you start off with a lens that does not have it, you will get so tired of looking at blurry pictures on your computer, that you will try harder and concentrate more before clicking out in the real world.

[OsmosisStudios]

I would only consider VR to be a real "want" on anything with a focal length longer than 100mm. Below that, its not that necessary; above it, it can be a godsend. Theres nothing quite like shooting at 300mm on DX at 1/60 and getting tack sharp results.

[Fishpic]

Love the VR on my Nikkor 18-200. You can drink 4 cups of coffee and still be steady at 200 lol. I never feel like it slows me down, but you can turn it off if needed on the lens.