VR or no VR

[jasonkwong135]

I m looking at getting Nikon 70-300mm lens, there is a huge price difference between VR and non VR. I would like to know if there is a huge enough difference to justify the price increment?

Has anyone got any pictures that can show how a VR and a non VR lens differ in performance?


Cheers

Jason

[RichardTaylor]

The VR lens runs rings around a non VR lens, depending on the subject, when shooting hand held at slow shutter speeds.

If shooting on a tripod or at high shutter speeds it doesn't really matter.

The lenses I use most have VR (Image stabilisation)

[dcclark]

Depends on how you want to use your lens, but I highly recommend VR. It's not hard to find side-by-side comparisons of VR vs. no-VR on the web.

Nikon quotes 3-4 stops improvement -- in my personal experience, 2-3 is pretty much for certain. In this context, "improvement" means "how much slower your shutter speed can be and still get clear photos, most of the time."

For handheld use in anything but excellent lighting, I'd highly recommend the VR version.

[jasonkwong135]

thanks a lot. the nikkor lens is a little bit pricy, is there other brands (Sigma, tamron etc) 70-300mm lens that is equivalent to VR in nikkor?

Cheers

Jason

[sk66]

Sigma's OS is the same as VR. I've never seen anywhere near 2 stops improvement from OS/IS/VR...

Really dcclark? You can shoot at ISO 800 instead of ISO 3200 just because of VR? That could be HUGE!

Wouldn't help me much though because most of my subjects move.....maybe that's why I've never seen that much of a benefit.

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by sk66

Sigma's OS is the same as VR. I've never seen anywhere near 2 stops improvement from OS/IS/VR...

Really dcclark? You can shoot at ISO 800 instead of ISO 3200 just because of VR? That could be HUGE!

Wouldn't help me much though because most of my subjects move.....maybe that's why I've never seen that much of a benefit.

Er, yes actually (can't tell if you're being sarcastic or amazed). It may also have to do with my Hands of Iron (seriously, I can handhold a 50mm at 1/10 sec.), but I find that I can take sharp shots with my VR lens at MUCH slower speeds than my non-VR lenses, at similar focal lengths.

Check out the PR -- Nikon really does claim 3-4 stops of improvement. It's rarely that good, but it IS still pretty good. Also, you're probably right about moving vs. stationary subjects -- I primarily photograph poorly-lit ruins and things like that.

[sk66]

Not being sarcastic...Kinda surprised.

But since VR (or similar) does nothing to eliminate subject motion blur, it is only beneficial for relatively stationary subjects.

I can also usually handhold well below the "rule of thumb".

I've only ever owned one stabilized lens and I don't own one now. Maybe I'm overlooking something I should give more consideration to. Now it's balancing "cost vs benefit".....I do take some stationary subject shots in less than ideal light (who doesn't), but I lso have very good high ISO ability with the D3.....

I guess if I were to consider everything and make a recommendation to someone...it would be a better body with high ISO capability *might* be a better investment than VR lenses. Better faster lenses are always the preference.... But the better body will improve your ability to capture both stationary and moving subjects with all of your lenses. Upgrading all of your lenses could cost quite a bit more.

That is why I went to a D3. VR helps me very little for most of my photography. But now I have the D3, maybe I should look to VR for any additional improvement needed...
(chants to self...I don't need anything..I don't need anything..)

[RichardTaylor]

In my experience I feel it is worth 2 stops.

While it is great for hand held low light shooting it also comes in handy when you want to shoot at a relatively slow shutter speeds for more DOF, or to use a lower ISO, or to show subject motion.

Example


Canon 350D (Rebel XT) with Canon 17-85 IS lens @ 17mm (~28mm)
ISO 100, 1/8 sec @ F11, hand held

[inkista]

Originally Posted by sk66

But since VR (or similar) does nothing to eliminate subject motion blur, it is only beneficial for relatively stationary subjects. ...

Like dcclark, I've seen two stops reliably from my single IS lens (24-105L), and sometimes managed to eke out three.

Where stabilization really rocks is architectural shots at dusk/night.



Canon XT. EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM. @24mm. iso 200. f/7.1, 1/8s.

The G9 rocks for this kind of stuff, and I'm willing to bet it's one of the reasons you like shooting with your G10, if you stop to think about it.

[OsmosisStudios]

Keep in mind, the difference in the 70-300 models isnt JUST the VR. Nikon changed the optics in the lens itself: the VR version is far superior.