Reading mode: Light Dark

To hell with VR!!!

Go to last post
Rumle

Rumle

Veteran Member
Messages
1,814
Solutions
3
Reaction score
407
Location
Copenhagen, DK
I hate VR! I think ill switch to used Contax gear, never look back and be happy for the rest of my life with my 6mp ;) Just to avoid stupid VR/IS/SSS/OS or what ever stabalising system discussions. I cant belive that some people seriously consider switch brand because they cant get VR in there 17-55 or 24-70 2.8, this is nuts! VR is highly over rated IMHO! Yes I do own VR lenses, and yes I do find the feature usefull from time to time. I just read some guy on this forum saying that the 17-55 sucks because it lags VR... also this person said the canon 17-55 is a better lens for this reason... (have you ever held both lenses? IQ and VR is not the only factor that plays in when comparing lenses.) IMO this is as stupid as when camerastore sells persons are talking people in to buying a P&S camera with 14mp instead of one with lower MP for the only reason that they can print bigger, but will they? and can they really?

Another angry comment: Stop comparing the 16-85 and the 17-55 at least stop saying that VR makes up for the lost f/. You dont know what you are talking about!

--
l2u/l\Le
 
Wow you seem pretty upset about this. I am betting you own a 17-55. :)

Here is my take on this. Every lens is a tool. If one lens has VR and the other doesnt then that will make a difference with some shots. I also have a 17-55, 16-85 and 18-200. I would rebuy the 17-55 if it came out with VR the same day. VR will give you an advantage sometimes and that sometimes could be important.

For example, my two favortie places are disney and las vegas. I am not taking a tripod to either place, so a lens with VR will go an the 17-55 will stay home. Try taking a night time photo of the casinos with a 17-55 and no tripod. You will just have to crank up the ISO to compensate. It would be better to have the 17-55 and a tripod but I want to enjoy photography, not loath carrying all this stuff.

Now the 16-85 vs the 17-55 issue. The 16-85 is a very sharp lens. I am very impressed. I dont do pixel peeping but in my shots, it equals my 17-55 and it is better in the corners. Now obviously it doesnt do so well at 2.8 and you can't blur the background as much. It is not going to replace my 17-55 for weddings, but I would have no problem at all using it as a backup if the 17-55 went down.

Wedding are very fast paced and having VR is a big time benefit. You do not always have the luxury of using a tripod at such an event. Again that is why I would buy a new 17-55 if one came out with VR. I dont think it ever will. DX is not dying, but professional DX may be getting close. The new 24-70 doesnt have VR, so obviously Nikon does not think it is important.
Rumle said:
I hate VR! I think ill switch to used Contax gear, never look back
and be happy for the rest of my life with my 6mp ;) Just to avoid
stupid VR/IS/SSS/OS or what ever stabalising system discussions. I
cant belive that some people seriously consider switch brand because
they cant get VR in there 17-55 or 24-70 2.8, this is nuts! VR is
highly over rated IMHO! Yes I do own VR lenses, and yes I do find the
feature usefull from time to time. I just read some guy on this forum
saying that the 17-55 sucks because it lags VR... also this person
said the canon 17-55 is a better lens for this reason... (have you
ever held both lenses? IQ and VR is not the only factor that plays in
when comparing lenses.) IMO this is as stupid as when camerastore
sells persons are talking people in to buying a P&S camera with 14mp
instead of one with lower MP for the only reason that they can print
bigger, but will they? and can they really?

Another angry comment: Stop comparing the 16-85 and the 17-55 at
least stop saying that VR makes up for the lost f/. You dont know
what you are talking about!

--
l2u/l\Le
Click to expand...
--
Jeffrey P. Kempster
Louisville, KY, U.S.A.
http://www.jeffkempster.com
 
I can sympathise with your frustration and I cringe when I see naive punters getting advice from camera store salesmen who should know better.
But I do like VR.
 
Step back from the computer if it upsets you.
Boris
--
Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best
proof of stupidity.
Michel de Montaigne

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
 
Jeffrey P. Kempster said:
Wow you seem pretty upset about this. I am betting you own a 17-55. :)

Here is my take on this. Every lens is a tool. If one lens has VR
and the other doesnt then that will make a difference with some
shots. I also have a 17-55, 16-85 and 18-200. I would rebuy the
17-55 if it came out with VR the same day. VR will give you an
advantage sometimes and that sometimes could be important.

For example, my two favortie places are disney and las vegas. I am
not taking a tripod to either place, so a lens with VR will go an the
17-55 will stay home. Try taking a night time photo of the casinos
with a 17-55 and no tripod. You will just have to crank up the ISO
to compensate. It would be better to have the 17-55 and a tripod but
I want to enjoy photography, not loath carrying all this stuff.

Now the 16-85 vs the 17-55 issue. The 16-85 is a very sharp lens. I
am very impressed. I dont do pixel peeping but in my shots, it
equals my 17-55 and it is better in the corners. Now obviously it
doesnt do so well at 2.8 and you can't blur the background as much.
It is not going to replace my 17-55 for weddings, but I would have no
problem at all using it as a backup if the 17-55 went down.

Wedding are very fast paced and having VR is a big time benefit. You
do not always have the luxury of using a tripod at such an event.
Again that is why I would buy a new 17-55 if one came out with VR. I
dont think it ever will. DX is not dying, but professional DX may be
getting close. The new 24-70 doesnt have VR, so obviously Nikon does
not think it is important.
Click to expand...
Amazing, an intelligent, well informed post on DP Review. Who would have thought. :-)
 
What upset you with VR and why would you change brands?

I understand that VR can't freeze an action, but overall works wonderfully. YMMV of course depending on how steady your hands are. I've found VR particularly usefull on 18-200, It is less effective on 70-200/300.

Would I like to see VR on other lenses? absolutely, just like any other tool you can choose wether to use it or not by setting the switch.
 
Sort of funny that many of todays "photographers" want or need VR. We never had any such thing with our old manual focus lenses and center weighted film SLRs in the 80's, 70's, and previously. We could still get sharp photos without it using good technique. As far as I know, I haven't seen any medium format VR/IS lenses and there are wedding photographers out there who seem to know have the skill to handhold these babies and get a nice steady shot.

VR/IS is for the masses of wannabe photographers who don't have the patience to learn good technique. It's not a bad thing as it does open up photography for the less skilled and gives them the fighting chance to compete in the market when they wouldn't be able to previously.

I've shot Vegas at night hand held at ISO 400 without a tripod up on the little Eiffel Tower places. It's possible to get good clean shots during the Bellagio fountain shows.

I guess I will be needing to use VR more and more as I get older and am unable to hold the camera and lens still (or after having too much caffeine).
 
Easy Tiger! That hits a little close to home :-)

I think your beef is with "people" who base their entire gear and photographic philosophy around one specific mechanical feature. Whether it be AF-S, VR, Auto Focus, etc.

What Next? To hell with non-rotating zoom lenses !!! Who the heck uses filters anyways? :-)
 
Not all of us have perfectly steady hands :(

I have found VR to be a great boon in my case. I know about the various techniques for holding the camera, leaning against a light post, etc, but I have found VR often makes a noticeable improvement when I shoot at lower shutter speeds. I am seriously considering either a 17-35 or 17-55 f2.8 lens and that is one feature I would love to see since my 18-200 has it and it works fairly well.
 
Whether good or bad technique - VR is still a definite enhancement...

I was sceptical of the benefits: I go back to when you had to buy different bodies to choose between aperture and shutter-priority - auto-focus is still suspiciously new-fangled for me, and I was handholding 200mm lenses decades before VR was invented.

My 70-300VR arrived earlier this week. Just messing around in my dimly lit basement the night I got it I was able to zoom in on a flag the other side of the room and at 300m shoting handheld at 1/15th I was able to resolve the weave of the fabric and stitching in the flag!

Next day I was playing with my new toy in the park... this is straight out of the camera apart from resizing, handheld, albeit braced against a tree, 300mm at 1/4 second!!!

 
Jeff Diaz said:
VR/IS is for the masses of wannabe photographers who don't have the
patience to learn good technique.
Click to expand...
"Hear Hear!"

Also the crutch of many-a-foolish amateur is the damned-all lazy function of AutoFocus.... Oh and Matrix Metering, too...might as well throw in Nikons CLS in the mix, because any photographer worth his refrigerated Tri-X knows that all you need is the proper math equations to get a well lit flash exposure. Who the heck needs a microchip to do the thinking for you?! Lets do away with all of this technological hogwash and go back to using something like this:



--
I've upped my ISO, now up yours.
 
Jeff Diaz said:
Sort of funny that many of todays "photographers" want or need VR. We
never had any such thing with our old manual focus lenses and center
weighted film SLRs in the 80's, 70's, and previously. We could still
get sharp photos without it using good technique.
Click to expand...
And people got all sorts of great shots without metering, AF, or even fast ISO film. So what's your point? The fact that great photography was possible without today's technology doesn't mean there's no value in that technology.
Jeff Diaz said:
As far as I know, I
haven't seen any medium format VR/IS lenses and there are wedding
photographers out there who seem to know have the skill to handhold
these babies and get a nice steady shot.
Click to expand...
Of course there are. VR is a tool and as such, it isn't required or useful for every task.
Jeff Diaz said:
VR/IS is for the masses of wannabe photographers who don't have the
patience to learn good technique.
Click to expand...
Go back and have a look at the lenses Nikon equipped with VR. It wasn't until the last 2 years or so that we started entry level lenses equipped with it. Prior to the 18-200VR, the only "consumer" VR lens I'm aware of was the 24-120VR. All the rest were $1000+ telephoto lenses. And when VR was first introduced, I'm sure there were significant numbers of professionals who were early adopters, just as they used by many professionals today.

larsbc
 
Al said:
Kaj E said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1039&message=27251551
--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up, I'll just go ahead and delete all the
wonderfully sharp images I shot with my 16-85 inside a quilt museum.
They were mostly 1/2 to 1/5 sec at f8 and f10 at 16mm. You're
probably right, the VR had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
You are most welcome. It is my pleasure to present the facts.

Here is one of my handheld shots at 1/2s. Shot with a Coolpix 5700 (no VR):



--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member
 
VR is nice to have with longer focal lengths and for static subjects in low light where slower shutter speeds are possible. It's not necessary, like many other technological advances, but nice to have as an option.
--
LayneC
 
slimandy said:
I can sympathise with your frustration and I cringe when I see naive
punters getting advice from camera store salesmen who should know
better.
But I do like VR.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I to like VR, and I enjoy the stabalized view in the viewfinder. Its the hype i dont like.

--
l2u/l\Le
 
Boris said:
Step back from the computer if it upsets you.
Click to expand...
ha ha :) Ya, I see I sounded like an old wa*ker... just had to get it out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top