I am trying to figure out if VR is really that important on super telephoto. Lenses that weight 6-7 lbs like the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR or the 200-400 VR are too heavy to hand hold (for long period of time). Shooting the 70-200 VR with my D3, it gets pretty heavy after 30 mins of continuous shooting. I think sticking them on a tripod is the best way to get sharp images. If so, is it really important to have VR...is VR overrated? I am trying to stick to Nikon telephoto but they are so darn pricey. The Sigma 500 4.5 + 1.4 TC looks very attractive at just $4,000 shipped new. Any thoughs?

I have been trying a 300 2.8 recently, and VR helped me to get the shot... you can hand hold the lens for a few minutes... used with a monopod this is a nice combo. I will most probably invest in a 200-400VR soon, one of the applications being wildlife, and flying birds... almost mandatory to shoot hand held... you win a few stops for static subjects and you get a more stable and accurate picture in the viewfinder in general. Maybe it is a bit overrated, but I still find VR useful, even on those lenses.

Guy

The more you handhold these suckers the fitter you will get.

If handholding, the VR will help heaps. If you are going to use a tripod there is not really a need for it.

Tripod mounted I never had a problem with stability and getting sharp images. VR is really handing with these huge lenses on a monopod. I haven't used the Nikon versions but when I rented the big guns from Canon I would routinely use a 500 or 600mm IS lens on monopod and the images were amazing, sharp. My keeper rate on a monopod was as good as if I had used my tripod. Possibly in terrible light where 2-4 stops of stabilization still isn't enough the tripod will win out. Sigma 500mm f/4.5 is a good buy, a couple of my friends love them. Of course they would like the Nikon equivalents but then again it's also another $3-4K. I hear good things about the Sigma 300-800mm as well. If you don't plan on using a monopod maybe the 500mm f/4 AF-S non-VR is a way to go and those pop up from time to time around $5K.

Thank you guys. Money is an issue so I am trying to see VR and Nikon brand is worth the extra cash. I shoot weddings for a living so to invest 4K in something just for fun is very...unreasonable but when you want it you want it.

The Sigma 500 4.5 + 1.4 Sigma TC is $4K and gives me 700mm on the FX sensor while the Nikon 300 f2.8 VR + 1.7 TC is $5K and only gives me 510mm.

BTW, I have a monopod that I rarely use so I hear what you all recommend about the VR and monopod. I never really thought about that. Thanks.

Any chance you can rent a non-VR super tele on plop it on a monopod to see the results? I never tried it but I imagine a usable ISO 800 -3200 + good light should yield good results. I do know some wedding photographers who have assistants that use a Sigma 120-300mm or 300mm VR for those close-up shots. This could be a potential tax write-off for you. However if this is for birding or wildlife you'll want the 500mm.

I don't use the VR on my 70-200 much, but on the 200-400 it's very useful when shooting handheld or with a monopod.

Tuan, Just wondering where you shoot brides at 500-800 mm ? Christopher

VR or IS greatly helps stabilise your own movements and if the subject is not fast moving then it will also allow slower shutter speeds to be used for equally sharp images. However, it does not freeze subject motion and so the benefit to image sharpness depends on what you are shooting.

The IS / VR works equally well on a monopod as hand-held but offers almost nothing to tripod users unless you have an improved IS / VR that can work to minimise mirror and other tiny vibrations.

A secondary but still important benefit is that it stabilises the viewfinder image and allows you to make better manual focus tweaks and also instills greater confidence that you are holding the lens steady enough (especially if you are not used to long lenses). Similarly, it greatly stabilises live-view images, especially when zoomed in.

It may or may not improve AF tracking. I've not read anything about this but when I looked at a live view screen image I realised how much the image seen by the camera AF system is moving all over the place without VR or IS and so I reasoned that it might improve AF tracking in particular with a camera that has a large number of AF sensors packed in close together. It certainly would not hurt.

- Alan

spanishbayonet wrote:
Tuan, Just wondering where you shoot brides at 500-800 mm ? Christopher

When I need to shoot around corners/walls and sometimes I take them out on the safari

Christopher, I want the lens for nature mostly but if I get the 300 2.8 VR combo I can use it for tight ceremony shots now that I have FX. the 70-200 VR is sometimes not long enough.