Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
  

Archive 2012 · What is VR really for?
  
 
Ben Horne
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · What is VR really for?


ChrisCoy wrote:
Sorry Ben. I can count on two hands the number of lenses I have shot with since buying my D90 some years ago.

- Nikon 24-85
- Sigma 70-200 (pre VR)
- 80-200 AF-D
- 50mm AF-D
- 80-200 AF-S
- Tamron 28-75
- Tamron 50-200 (I think)
- Sigma 24-70 HSM
- Nikon 24-70 G
- And some Series E manual lenses

As I said, I've never owned one, and never shot with one, so I have no idea what VR is like. And I've never rented lenses either.


I occasionally meet people who have never used a computer. I don't even see how that's a possibility this day in age. You encounter computers everywhere in modern society, so it's not a matter of never having stumbled across one. We're talking about a conscious effort to intentionally avoid computers rather than embracing what is considered mainstream.

Though your avoidance of VR is not quite to that degree, I see some similarities. Almost anyone buying a consumer camera in recent years will end up with a VR lens or two -- so your decision not to have any of these lenses seems like a conscious decision to avoid it. It's certainly your choice not to use VR, but when you see the rest of the photographic world embracing something -- that usually says something about its validity.



Dec 02, 2012 at 04:27 PM
RRRoger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · What is VR really for?


I certainly would not avoid buying a lens just because it has VR.
With the advances they are making in technology,
I even expect to turn it on when Nikon gets to VRIII.



Dec 02, 2012 at 05:00 PM
ChrisCoy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · What is VR really for?


True, but it hasn't been intentional.

When I bought my D90 in 2008 or 2009, I bought the body only. My sister in law shot Nikon at that time, so she let me borrow a lens until I could afford my own - the 24-85. I used that until I bought my first 80-200, the AF-D. I ended up selling my Sister in law the 80-200 AF-D and buying the Nikon 24-70, and had that until August when I traded it for the 80-200 AF-S and Sigma 24-70. All the other lenses in the list were my sister in laws.

I've never rented lenses, because I've learned to work with what I have, and I don't borrow lenses from friends because I don't want to have to replace them if anything occurs. It just so happens that everything that myself and my sister in law have ever owned are non-VR lenses.

And the 'photographic community' embraces thousands of products that I don't need, that doesn't mean they aren't valid products. It just means that they aren't valid for me. The reason I asked about VR is because my sister in law is looking into the new Tamron 70-200 VC and she asked my opinion. I told her that I would save the money and buy a new 80-200 AF-D, but that is before this thread taught me that VC would or could give her 4 to 5 stops extra stability. She shoots weddings, and often works in low light. In the past we've gotten along with speedlights for fill and shutter speeds at 1/125th or betters. Its just a personal rule that we've established for ourselves - if you have to go lower than 1/125th get another flash or find another location with better lighting. But since she can't afford a new 70-200 VRII, the Tamron VC may be an option - and now that I know what the difference is I'll advise her to check it out before opting for the non-VR lens.


Ben Horne wrote:



Dec 03, 2012 at 01:12 AM
James R
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · What is VR really for?


Chris,

In photography ''what you need" is commensurate to "what you know." I've drained a few wallets buying what I never thought I'd need.



Dec 03, 2012 at 03:15 AM
ytwong
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · What is VR really for?


She shoots weddings, and often works in low light. In the past we've gotten along with speedlights for fill and shutter speeds at 1/125th or betters. Its just a personal rule that we've established for ourselves - if you have to go lower than 1/125th get another flash or find another location with better lighting.

You can use fill flash with high iso and slower shutter speed with VR in events. VR gives some new possibilities, it's up to the user to make use of it or not.

For me, the downside of VR is higher price and the lens get more stuffs to screw up (I had a lens's VR unit failed, causing vibration all the time....instead of reducing those), so I actually prefer Sony's body stabilization approach (better replace a camera body than a lens)



Dec 03, 2012 at 03:20 AM
talexander
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #6 · What is VR really for?


Every time I use the work camera that lacks VR I'm reminded how much I enjoy VR. I imagine its like manual vs autofocus, you can manual focus every shot but af makes life more convenient. VR makes hand holding shots vs setting up tripod more convienent.

Tim



Dec 03, 2012 at 06:01 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · What is VR really for?


RRRoger wrote:
I certainly would not avoid buying a lens just because it has VR.
With the advances they are making in technology,
I even expect to turn it on when Nikon gets to VRIII.


Well, there is little choice with many lenses because there is only a model with VR.

EBH



Dec 03, 2012 at 06:09 AM
RRRoger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · What is VR really for?


EB-1 wrote:
Well, there is little choice with many lenses because there is only a model with VR.
EBH quote<<<

You always have the choice to turn it off.

My problem is that it slows down focus to much.
It is kind of like asking a portrait subject to hold a smile to long.

While shooting action with a D3 this is a real problem.
On the other hand, now that I have a D800,
I have to slow my shot down anyway
because more resolution shows movement blur mo beta.
So a fast lens with VRII is much more useable and I expect VRIII to be even
...Show more



Dec 03, 2012 at 06:55 AM
SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · What is VR really for?


I shoot handheld candids with the 200mm F2.0 often with a 1.7X TC. I fire a 9/10 frame burst and, at some point the person is still while the VR/IS nulls out my shakey grip. I get shots I could get no other way.


Dec 03, 2012 at 12:56 PM
camerapapi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · What is VR really for?


VR is an invaluable tool for the photographer. I go often to the Everglades National Park to photograph birds and other animals. Using a tripod is often unpractical and using VR guarantees that the pictures in general will be in focus.
I believe in using a tripod, it is what I have done for over 45 years but since I have been using VR lenses the use of a tripod has not been as important as it was in the past. Do not misunderstand me, I use and recommend a tripod for better composition in landscape photography and macro shots.
I do recommend that you use a VR lens and this recommendation is based on not knowing what your subjects are. I am sure you are going to be pleasantly surprised at your images.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.



Dec 04, 2012 at 01:18 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



hayduke
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · What is VR really for?


I will never again buy a lens over 100mm without VR/IS - its simply works so well that i feel i am wasting my money not having it.

--- and as someone has already mentioned: having the scene stabilized before my eyes is a tremendous help when framing the shot.

Money aside: I simply don't understand why someone would choose to buy a tele lens without this feature!?



Dec 04, 2012 at 02:42 AM
Chestnut
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · What is VR really for?


I learned this weekend that VR is really a blessing.

I had an 85mm Sigma on my D800E, and asked my mother-in-law to take a few pictures of us, outside in daylight. I didn't have time to pixel peep on the LCD and just did a quick review of the full image while still outside. These were just simple portraits for X'Mas cards.

Lo-n-behold, I loaded them on my laptop this morning, and more than half of them were blurry due to mild camera shake. I understand the D800 takes more discipline to shoot properly. But I never thought that 1/200 with an 85mm lens wouldn't be enough to mitigate an average camera user's shake

Lesson learned. Next year, I'm setting up a tripod and a remote release or a timer.



Dec 04, 2012 at 04:17 AM
workerdrone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #13 · What is VR really for?


^ that's more than mild camera shake. Lots of people are shaky and then exacerbate the shake with a shutter mash, and that body/lens is pretty weighty for average folk :-)

Good smooth technique still helps even with VR on - next time have them shoot some bursts, there will probably be a couple sharp ones in among the blur of the rest, if you have no tripod.



Dec 04, 2012 at 07:22 PM
LA_Sportsman
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #14 · What is VR really for?


You keep mentioning never shooting below 1/125. That is very subjective to the type of shooting you are doing. I know nothing about shooting a wedding so that may be valid there. It doesn't work if I'm shooting warbirds and looking for propblur. I might start at 1/125 but keep going slower and see if I can still keep the plane sharp.

Also as a nature/landscape photographer I'm shooting early/late and pushing light. I prefer to keep ISO down (still shooting D300 since I put my money in glass the last few years) so squeezing out a few extra stops is always good. I debated buying a used 70-200 VRI instead of VRII but I never considered the 80-200 without VR.

I would also differ on the "use a cheap tripod" if I have to. I carry a high quality tripod that is comensurate with my expensive gear I trust to it. I also know I will have sharp images when shooting at slow shutter speeds (not VR related but you mentioned cheap tripods).



Dec 05, 2012 at 10:23 PM
woos
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · What is VR really for?


I'm a very shaky person. I'd never ever buy another lens over 150mm or so, hell, maybe 100mm, without stabilization. It helps sooooo much. Even on a tripod it helps with a long lens. Just having the viewfinder image smooth and clear helps with stuff like birds, sooooooo much lol.

Also helps if you are doing a landscape with a tele lens....an example would be this past summer... was in Alaska for the summer, chilling on my father's nordic tug. The weather wasn't great, mostly rainy and a little windy. So, I'm taking some landscapes from a boat that is rolling quite a bit. The stabilization really makes all the difference and enables you to counteract something like the periodic rolling of a boat for shots like this (i know, not the best shot, but I love it for some reason):








Dec 05, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Next39
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #16 · What is VR really for?


To me, VR is a fantastic tool. I used it for panning shots and it works wonders when shooting from a bouncing vehicle.


Here's a panning shot taken at 1/60:








Another panning shot, this one at 1/160, f/2:









I shot this from the back of the pace truck bouncing down the race track. Very dark conditions, the track was really rough and the brand new pace truck that I was shooting from was rattling like crazy. It was a good test for the active VR mode.








Another from the pace truck, shot at 1/100:








Dec 07, 2012 at 01:00 PM
Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · What is VR really for?


Awesome job on the panning shots!

Yea, VR is a great tool for that.



Dec 07, 2012 at 06:48 PM
Airphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · What is VR really for?


ChrisCoy wrote:
I hand hold my 80-200 AF-S, which is a beast in itself. I just don't shoot slower than 1/125th, and always try to stay at least at 1/160th or better if I can when I'm using it.

Although I assisted on a wedding on November 17th, and shot from the balcony. After about 15 minutes, I had it propped on the railing in front of me for added stability. This is by far the heaviest lens I've ever shot with, and I've only had it since August with limited use.

I'd love to try handholding a 500... got one I can borrow
...Show more

As file sizes get bigger and as your lens gets longer the merits of vr show up. In fact at 1/100th sec the Nikon 70-300 vr will deliver better images than your 80-200 because of the vr 90% of the time. Yes the 80-200 is a superior lens. but vr is a huge equalizer of optic quality.
Sigmas OS is very equal to VR or Canons IS . I wouldnt buy a long lens without it!



Dec 07, 2012 at 07:16 PM
Airspeed
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · What is VR really for?


I am looking for 2.8 glass because I am almost always shooting moving targets in poor light with no flash permitted at the event. My question to all. Is VR II worth the extra money over VRI?
I appreciate being able to go to a lower shutter speed when shooting a still target that VR gives me. But since I am mostly shooting moving targets should I save the $ and get some 2.8 glass that is not stabilized?
I apologize if there is a thread that more closely addresses this specific question. If there is could you direct me there?



Jan 05, 2013 at 11:41 PM
ACNYPhoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · What is VR really for?


All my lenses that have it, I leave it off 95% of the time...


Jan 06, 2013 at 01:17 AM
1       2      
3
       4       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password