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: