Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2014 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?

  
 
azbill
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


Wanting to acquire a Nikon 500mm f/4. A little undecided about which version to get.
The AF-S II version is a pound lighter than than the current VR version, which I'm sure would be appreciated as the lens will be used mostly handheld for aviation and raptor photography. It can also be had a lot cheaper than the VR version.
For those with non VR versions of this lens, are there times you wish you had the VR? Optically, I believe they are identical, correct?
Thanks in advance!



Jun 14, 2014 at 12:51 PM
workerdrone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


I'm willing to bet that the VR is more of an advantage to handheld shots than would be the weight loss of not having it. But that might be the biased opinion of a VR owner I get sharp shots in awkward positions where I have no right to (think squatting in canoe and swinging it around wildly)

BTW, there is often confusion about the VR version I guess - there is no VRI or VRII, just one version.



Jun 14, 2014 at 01:03 PM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


While it can be argued that VR isn't essential, I'm with workerdrone - I've got lots of images I probably never would have achieved without it. Not only awkward positions either - sometimes on windy days VR is handy just to overcome the vibrations caused by the wind hitting your rig (and I'm using a 5 series Gitzo!)

It's like anything else - it doesn't guarantee the shot, but it helps. Kind of like large buffers, high FPS, high ISOs, focus tracking, etc.



Jun 14, 2014 at 01:31 PM
Christian H
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


I'm happy about having VR. Handheld shots down to 1/250 turn out remarkably well. That said, if you shoot mostly in good light (as would be the case in Arizona) it's not essential.


Jun 14, 2014 at 02:04 PM
mmarconi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


I have the AF-S II version, it a great lens. Often I think about getting the VR version, in fact I have the money set aside for it, just haven't pulled the trigger. I love the lightness of mine, I hike a lot with it, rarely use a tripod, mostly monopod and some handheld for large birds in flight (raptors). It's been a great lens for me, sharp as a tack, wicked fast autofocus and takes a 1.4 TC like it's not even there.

If by aviation you mean in flight and likewise for raptors then VR will be of little to no use for you. I also have a 300 2.8 VR thats sometimes used for BIF shooting, always have VR turned off for any kind of moving targets.

There are times when I wish I had VR usually early in the morning or late in the day shooting, the best times for wildlife. If you plan to shoot more static subjects in marginal light then VR is a big plus. I agree with Steve, it would be very helpful on windy days also, especially for monopod work.

I'll more than likely upgrade to a VR version sooner or later, probably the 600mm though.



Jun 14, 2014 at 02:17 PM
azbill
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


Thanks for all of the responses.
I would expect to do most of my shooting in bright Az light, shooting moving subjects, which is why I was wondering if the VR was for me? As mentioned, the fact that the AF-S II version is a pound lighter makes it an attractive option, but it sounds as though the VR is a nice option to have under adverse conditions.
Tough call. I do appreciate everyone's input!



Jun 14, 2014 at 03:06 PM
DGC1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


If you're gonna hand hold, yes. If you use a tripod, no.


Jun 14, 2014 at 09:32 PM
groob
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


I have the AF-S II version and I handhold it a lot. If you're shooting BIF, then you're shutter speed will probably be high enough that you don't need VR. If I'm not shooting a subject where I have a high SS, then I use either a bean bag or a tripod. I have shots of a belted kingfisher at 1/20 shot on a beanbag that are sharp. I personally think the lighter weight and closer MFD outweigh the VR. BTW, I used to use a 200-400 VR and the only time I think the VR helped was when I was shooting black bears in woods past dusk when I didn't want to push my D7000's ISO too high. You can look at the bird and wildlife shots on my website: lylegruby.smugmug.com and judge. I don't think any of those shots were shot with VR on-- most of them were shot with my 500 which doesn't have VR anyway. Just my opinion.


Jun 14, 2014 at 10:44 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


VR is part of the lens design, so the two lenses would not be quite the same. VR/IS/OS makes a big difference for me with a fast long tele like the 500. I've captured many wildlife images that would not have been possible with the older lenses, but I'm not much into the BIFs.

Another issue to consider is the age of the design and availability of repair parts. Of course you could buy the AF-S II now and then replace it with a future 500/4 with VR, presumably one with lighter weight. If the current tele lens market trends are any indication a new Nikkor design will be rather more expensive.

EBH



Jun 14, 2014 at 11:05 PM
Frogfish
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


Steve Perry wrote:
While it can be argued that VR isn't essential, I'm with workerdrone - I've got lots of images I probably never would have achieved without it. Not only awkward positions either - sometimes on windy days VR is handy just to overcome the vibrations caused by the wind hitting your rig (and I'm using a 5 series Gitzo!)

It's like anything else - it doesn't guarantee the shot, but it helps. Kind of like large buffers, high FPS, high ISOs, focus tracking, etc.


Alternatively if you can't afford the VR version (and it's most certainly not peanuts) then the non-VR version will also get you shots you probably never would have achieved without it !

Consider the 300/2.8 VRII and the superb TC20EIII if your budget doesn't reach (as mine didn't).



Jun 15, 2014 at 03:50 AM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?




Alternatively if you can't afford the VR version (and it's most certainly not peanuts) then the non-VR version will also get you shots you probably never would have achieved without it !



can't argue with that!



Jun 15, 2014 at 07:30 AM
azbill
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


EB-1, good point on the availability of parts for the older models, something that was in the back of my mind also.
For those with a VR lens, at what shutter speed do you tend to engage the VR?
Frogfish, I hear ya. Try as I may to get 500mm shots with my 300mm f/4, it hasn't happened yet.



Jun 15, 2014 at 09:22 AM
mmarconi
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


Frogfish wrote:
Alternatively if you can't afford the VR version (and it's most certainly not peanuts) then the non-VR version will also get you shots you probably never would have achieved without it !


Ha, sometimes we get so wrapped up in the desire to have newest/greatest, we overlook the obvious, great point.

Not sure how valid the parts concern is, after all the VR lens are still AF-S also. Unless (which I doubt) the AF-S implementation is vastly different on a VR lens.

Something else if your still not sure. It's a pretty safe bet to give the AF-S II a try then upgrade later if you find yourself needing VR. I bought my AF-S II a couple of years ago for $4600, pretty sure I could get close to that out of it today.



Jun 15, 2014 at 10:02 AM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


Thanks for the test Steve. Off-topic, but is that using fill flash or is the light just directional and causing the look? Do you use fill flash for much of your wildlife work?


Jun 15, 2014 at 11:17 AM
Steve Perry
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


binary visions wrote:
Thanks for the test Steve. Off-topic, but is that using fill flash or is the light just directional and causing the look? Do you use fill flash for much of your wildlife work?


Nope, no fill on that one. I think the reflection off the water is acting as a fill in this case. I do on rare occasion use a bit of fill flash to bring out color and balance shadows, but I don't care for the weird catch light it can produce in the eyes. It can be a pain to fix in post.



Jun 15, 2014 at 11:24 AM
JeffAUSTIN
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


I have owned both lenses and the VR has a higher keeper rate for me. I engage vr at 1/500 and slower.


Jun 15, 2014 at 12:45 PM
azbill
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


Steve, thank you for the additional info and images!
Jeff, if I may ask, what type of subjects were you shooting?



Jun 16, 2014 at 12:11 AM
JeffAUSTIN
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


mostly birds and animals along rivers.


Jun 16, 2014 at 07:54 AM
Steve Park
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 500mm f/4...to VR or not?


I posted a thread about the use of VR on Wildlife forum; https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1287178/0

Many suggested to VR is not needed when fast shutter speed is used. But it seemed more photographers leave the VR or IS on all the time, hand hold or tripod mounted.



mmarconi wrote:
Something else if your still not sure. It's a pretty safe bet to give the AF-S II a try then upgrade later if you find yourself needing VR. I bought my AF-S II a couple of years ago for $4600, pretty sure I could get close to that out of it today.



VR or NON-VR, age of the lens makes big difference, since no one knows how much use the lens has, IMO.
BTW, I paid about the same for my VR version,




Jun 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.