How important is VR

I am considering the 70-200 vr however everything I read regarding the 80-200 af-d is outstanding to say the least. Under what conditions will I wish I had the vr?

Mike Botkin said:

I am considering the 70-200 vr however everything I read regarding
the 80-200 af-d is outstanding to say the least. Under what
conditions will I wish I had the vr?

Click to expand...

IMO, the VR and AF-S focus on the lens make it worth the money over the 80-200. VR is very useful for hand held shots in lower light levels and those times when your technique is not the best that it can be. This is especially true for longer sessions when you tire and concentration wanes.

If you always use a tripod, then it's not such a big deal.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

If not, VR can be very important -- the difference in getting a shot and not. It's that simple.

Phil

Here is an example that I just happened to upload to my gallery. I was driving down the road to Tom's Hook at Chincoteague NWR and saw a couple birds sitting on a deadfalll over the adjacent canal, including this Cormorant trying to dry himself off in whatever sun filtered through the clouds and between the nearby trees. I had a 300 2.8 and tripod in the car, and the 70-200 on a 2nd body, which I frequently do. It was a dreary day. I could have tried to set up the tripod and 300 but I was concerned about spooking the Cormorant. Birds wait for you to set up and get ready to take a shot; they then fly off

I snuck up on him and shot a dozen images handheld at around 1/80s at 280mm. That would be tough to do without VR. That image could also be a little challenging on a tripod at that shutter speed.



More commonly I find myself shooting around 1/200 - 1/300 with VR on at 200-280mm (with a TC14). I personally find that around 200mm and up (with the TCs) I can capture a useable shot with VR on at marginal shutter speeds even if there is some subject motion. I think VR helps to increase my yield with marginal shots and even shots around the 1/FL rule of thumb. I also find it helpful for composing and setting tight AF focus points when the viewfinder scene is stable.

I use VR a lot, and for me it often makes a difference. It depends on what you are shooting, of course.

--
Regards,
Neil

Mike Botkin said:

I am considering the 70-200 vr however everything I read regarding
the 80-200 af-d is outstanding to say the least. Under what
conditions will I wish I had the vr?

Click to expand...

Any lighting condition where the shutter speed is acceptable for your subject, yet unacceptable for your focal lenght.

Ex: an outdoor concert shot at 1/80 at a focal lenght of 200mm. 1/80s is enough for the singer, yet might be too slow for 200mm without VR (handheld).

Mike Botkin said:

I am considering the 70-200 vr however everything I read regarding
the 80-200 af-d is outstanding to say the least. Under what
conditions will I wish I had the vr?

Click to expand...

The more important difference between the two lenses is the AF- S motor. VR is important for hand-held shooting as it allows you to stop down a bit to get better image quality in many situations.

The disadvantage of the VR lens is that it's somewhat prone to flare and ghosting. But with digital image processing sometimes you can correct these to an acceptable level.

The 70-200 VR is an awesome lens, thoiugh big and heavy. It's certainly my most productive photographic purchase.

I had exactly the same dilemma wanting a lens for low-light concert shooting but not really wanting to double the price of the 80-200 to get VR.

I got some advice, saw a few examples and plumped for the 80-200 non-VR. And I'm happy.
There are a few examples here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=20842923

My understanding is that VR is important and valuable for low-light, handheld shots but of course don't forget that your subject needs to be moving less as your shutter speed will be slower. I also heard the issue that as the internals are that much more complex, they can be more prone to failure...?

I think the honest answer is that VR will mean more keepers and if it's crucial that you get the shot, whatever the conditions, (because you're being paid or you can afford to be that discerning), get VR. Otherwise, you can get good shots, even in low light, without VR - you'll just bin more of them!

--
We only ask for advice when we already have the answer...

After using the 70-200VR, I will unlikely purchase a telephoto lens, that one can routinely (and reasonably) hand hold without it being VR. Too many shots potentially missed at the longer focal lengths.

A good test is to take a non VR lens, zoom out to 200mm or more while in the woods in the afternoon. Take 25 or so shots of birds, people jogging, etc. Do the same with a VR lens at 200mm or more. See the difference. Notice how your tightly composed panning shots (joggers, etc.) are just as you framed them in the viewfinder using a VR lens. Notice how your panning shots came out with the non VR lens... heads almost chopped off, joggers feet cut off at the ankles, etc..

Shoot on the beach no earlier than an hour before sunset at 200mm... see the difference?

Now, take it a step further, and shoot at 200mm or more, with a teleconverter and polarizer, or ND filter, etc.. attached, and notice how VR starts to quickly become something 'good-to-have'...

Either way you'll have a great lens.

I'd bet that you'd be thankful you had VR in the long run.

Good Luck!

Teila K. Day

My experience is that although it is very nice to have VR when shooting non-moving objects, it can not replace more light getting through to the CCD. I must add, that I live in Norway where lighting conditions are very poor half the year. I bought VR because I thought it would solve most of my problems, but I find that in practical life there is almost always some part of the motif you're shooting that moves and the only way to get around that in poor lighting is to have a lens with a larger light opening. Adjusting ISO can of course compensate a bit, but that soon shows in the picture quality. Unfortunately there is a reason why proffessionals pay for that expensive glass ;-( So while VR is nice, one should be aware of it's weaknesses before using money on VR rather on faster glass.
--
IVer Erling Årva
Nikonian
Good equipment isn't everything - good pictures are!

I jut recently purchased a 70-200 VR. I was using a 80-200 (tripod collar) version for a while. If you can afford the difference, I think the VR is well worth it. In very low light, I would never get a sharp picture with shutter speeds at 1/30s and lower hand held.

The only think I don't llike about VR is the noise it make when it turns on and off while taking the pictures.
--
'He who laughs last, thinks the slowest'

Mike Botkin said:

Under what conditions will I wish I had the vr?

Click to expand...

I can't think of any. I have the 70-200 VR. I
can't think of a single example where VR made
the difference between image and no image.
If VR is the only reason you wouldn't get the
80-200 AF-D, get the 80-200 AF-D.

The two reasons I splurged for the 70-200
is that it has AF-S and is 10mm wider.

Matt

I have a difficult time holding the camera steady and typically have to shoot around 1/200 to eliminate the camera shake effect and resulting blur.

Since splurging on the 70-200VR last Fall, I have been able to get better quality shots in dimly lit school auditoriums, football fields, and nighttime events than ever before. I has allowed me to finally shoot in the 1/100 or slower shutter speed that I could never touch before and the speed of the lens allows me to shoot at a higher shutter speed if needed to eliminate blur caused by the subject moving.

It also helps calm movement caused when you're shooting from the bleachers and other people are moving up and down and shaking the platform from which you are shooting.

If you are someone who can hold your camera "rock steady" in almost all conditions, it may not be as big of a deal for you, but it's sure made a difference for me.

Of course, you can't really operate too inconspicously with this large apendage attached to your camera. However, in our small town in North Florida, nobody really makes an issue of carrying equipment to the various events. Needless to say, you won't see my 70-200VR on eBay anytime soon

--
Regards,
Neil

Your comment does NOT make any sense in relation to the poster's question. Both lenses are 2.8. Therefore, the extra stop you mentioned is irrelevant!

InitZero said:

InitZero said:

Under what conditions will I wish I had the vr?

Click to expand...

I can't think of any. I have the 70-200 VR. I
can't think of a single example where VR made
the difference between image and no image.
If VR is the only reason you wouldn't get the
80-200 AF-D, get the 80-200 AF-D.

The two reasons I splurged for the 70-200
is that it has AF-S and is 10mm wider.

Matt

Click to expand...

I'm stunned and curious.. at what focal lengths, shutterspeeds, and time of day do you typically shoot with the 70-200vr?

Cordially

Teila K. Day

Thank you all for your responses. All of you have made some very good points to ponder. Still not sure what I will end up with. While I always like spending less if I can, the price of the VR isn't the issue. I am a bit of a traditionalist an have operated with similar size and weight lenses in the past. There are times when I think simpler is better, and I am always concerned about durability.

It seems as though most who have purchased the VR are happy they did. Are there any significant issues regarding durability with the VR? Are there any conditions where the non VR would be an advantage? Cold, heat, altitude, humidity, etc?

How shaky are your hands?

It depends on what I'm looking at.....pretty steady

Teila Day said:

I'm stunned and curious..

Click to expand...

Don't be.
Up until late-2004, I was shooting with manual-focus
lenses. I managed for more than 20 years without autofocus
and autoexposure, let alone vibration reduction.
Some of the new features I have come to love and really
rely on: matrix metering, fill flash I don't have to calculate
myself, autofocus.
VR, however, is not a feature I really use or care about.
It seems like a solution looking for a problem as opposed to
something that really helps me get good images. While I can
appreciate what it is supposed to do and see that it works
in controlled testing, I can't identify in my own photos
where it helps. That doesn't make it a bad feature. It just
means I wouldn't pay double for a 70-200 versus an 80-200
on the basis of VR.

Teila Day said:

at what focal lengths, shutterspeeds, and time of day
do you typically shoot with the 70-200vr?

Click to expand...

That's a good question. I don't know. I tried using
Wega2 to come up with an answer but it doesn't allow
you to filter the results by lens. It only allows filtering by
camera. Filtering by lens would be a sweet improvement.
Off the cuff, I'd say 65% of the photos taken with my
70-200 are well-lit and outside (speeds greater than 1/125).
The rest are night or inside (less than 1/125).
With my 180/2.8, 1/60 was about as low as I could go
with a good yield. 1/15 was where hand-holding ceased
to be a viable option. That is similar to what I'm seeing
with the 70-200. The yield is a bit better with the VR at
the low end, of course, but not $700 better than the
80-200 AF-D.
I really feel that a $80 monopod is a better purchase
than $700 for VR.

AF-S, on the other hand, is worth $500 more than AF-D
and 10mm on the wide end adds another $200. (If I had
a full-frame camera, the 10mm would be worth less.)

Matt

Mike Botkin said:

Are there any significant issues regarding durability with the VR?

Click to expand...

It is probably too early to tell. VR is still fairly new. I don't
think any VR lenses are reaching their design limits yet.
If VR holds up as well as AF-S does, I don't think there will
be any long-term problems. When AF-S first came out (and
AF before that), folks were really worried about their lenes.
Those fears turned out to be misplaced.

Matt