To hell with VR!!!

lanef said:

Ok, let's put it this way. If some buyers of VR lenses want to
overrate their VR lens, are they not entitled to do so? It's their
money, their investment and their opinion; you seem to get worked up
too easily. Disagree with them is one thing, but jumping on your
high horse is another. Just chill out, and enjoy your gear.

Click to expand...

The problem for me seems to be that on the internet, opinions and fact are one big mix, often misunderstand by the readers. Disclaimer: I do like VR (I did stat this earlyer).

But it will never be what it is hyped to be. Say you want to do night photography, yes VR helps. but it does not replace a tripod. for regular sports it does not help you a lot either, you cant freeze action (If that is what you wanna do) on 1/15 of a second anyway. then you are stucked at f/3.5/5.6

The reason I started this thread, was that I was reading a lot of lens recomendations here where the OPs was (IMO) misguided because a lot of people here have an idea that VR is the best thing since sliced bread.

--
l2u/l\Le

Rich H said:

Depending on what you shoot, VR can be far better than a F2.8 (or
even 1.4) lens. For portraits, low-light events like a concert, a
fast lens is beneficial. For landscape or vacation shots you need
more depth of field. F2.8 will rarely be the right f-stop for a
landscape picture. You will more likely be at F8-11 and the 16-85
has an advangage over the 17-55 in this area.

Rich H

Click to expand...

Yeah, you are right. Please understand that I never said that VR is not beneficial. My opinion is just that 17-55, 24-70 and other lenses like that are not bad and outdated lenses because the dont have VR, many people here dont understand this. And I agree for landscapes the 16-85 will propably be a fare greater lens than the 17-55, but that is one application. People generalize and say VR is good for every thing, and that a f/4 lens with VR equalize or exceed a f/2.8 lens in general.

--
l2u/l\Le

john Clinch said:

The fast lens verses VR debate has no end. Some like blurred back
grounds some like greater depth of field at a lower shutter speed.
You pays your money and takes your choice.

Click to expand...

Well, you can buy a 70-200 f2.8 VR and have both.

Actually, now that some of the third party companies have the VR (well, OS) technology too, we can except lenses like a 17-55 f2.8 VR at a decent price.

But it's true that both fast lenses and VR have specific uses. For instance, VR is great when you want some motion blur! For instance, when doing urbanscape, it will let your blur the cars and pedestrians slightly without the need for a tripod. Likewise when you want to give the feel of speed or fast action in sport, some controlled blur can be useful, and VR helps a lot there.

VRII said:

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?

Click to expand...

Don't forget to throw out Auto-focus too, remember how IT ruined photography!! ;-)
While we're at it, lets throw out digital too and all go back to film... ;-)

VR just ups the game. Yes, it may make it easier for hobbyists to take better photos, but it also allows pros to take photos that weren't possible before as well. If you have great hand holding technique, great, you can still take shots that the hobbyist can't if you are both working with VR.

Rumie:

1. Obviously, your comments, show why there are "different strokes, for different folks".

2. Still, I like VR, because I seldom carry a tripod; and, most places I am associated with, don't allow them anyway,

3. For lenses, that are available with VR, I tend to purchase them over the non-VR versions. For times, one doesn't want or need VR, I have had no problem with simply turning it off; but, it sure is quite useful for me, to have VR available for all the times I do want it,

4. Modern lenses are not much different from other high tech equipment, IMO. For, example, my 2008 corvette, has a lot of advanced features, I don't need all the time ------------ but, they sure are nice to have for the times when I do,

5. And, I am sure, that we and others here, can go on and on, about features of other things that are great to have, but perhaps are not needed all the time,

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

Hello Al. Have you posted the quilt images? I would like to see them if so.

Thanks.

--
-jts
http://www.pbase.com/jtsmall
Canon, Nikon and Olympus
equipment in profile

'From the first moment I handled my lens with a tender ardour.' Julia Margaret Cameron

This is interesting to me because I know I read the opposite about a year or so ago. The testing that was done showed that VR/IS helped the shaky photographer more than the steady one. Meaning the shaky shooter improved the number of stops they could handhold (3 or 4 stops) more than the steady photographer improved (more like 2 stops). Of course it is all relative to the individual shooter and who know how many other variables anyway...

squodge said:

Boris said:

You still need good hand holding technique even with VR.
Boris

Click to expand...

Indeed. Good hand holding technique might even give you more than a
three-stop advantage. We're reading about people shooting images at
1/2 second, even at 55mm, which is about five stops lower than what
one might expect from that focal distance.

VR is less important to me than a wide aperture. In fact, aesthetics
of a lens is more important to me, e.g the bokeh produced by the
Nikkor 85mm f/1.4.

Still, VR is with us - we might as well use it! If technology wasn't
embraced, we'd all still be walking in bare feet to go to shops that
might never have been invented.

~ squodge ~

Click to expand...

No, I don't post samples. For one thing I don't want to annoy a client. It's also more work and a waste of time in my opinion. I shoot a lot of youth sports and I don't post those either because it is too easy to find out everything about a player by their school and number on the uniform.

Here is how you decide if a lens is right for you. Order it from BH or some other reputable company. Try it for a few days and either keep it or send it back. At most you are out less than $20 for shipping. I have bought a fortune in equipment from BH, but I have also returned a few lenses and one body (a D200 that would not focus on anything).

Regarding the quilt museum. It was fund raising grip and grin type of deal. Some very dark areas, some window lit areas, etc. With the 16-85 I was able to work faster than with the 17-55 and my keeper rate at slow shutter speeds (both long and short focal lengths) was better than a lens without VR. It's really amazing to enter a dark exhibit, crank off a shot of an item at 1/5 sec at 85mm and have it be sharp. No flash, no tripod, just in and out. I did not miss the 2.8 at all. The 16-85 on a D300 for some applications is incredible because you can couple it with auto iso and quickly react to changing conditions.

Does the 16-85 replace the 17-55 or some other 2.8? No, not for low-light subjects that are moving quickly. Some posters waste their time looking for a "do everything" miracle lens. There is'nt one. You need to have several tools available and choose the one that is right for the job.

Rumle said:

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! Y

Click to expand...

You don't shoot much in low light without a flash, huh?

I'm going to disagree that it's "highly over rated".

I have a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D and a Sony DSLR-A700, and I love to capture memories in low light, at shutter speeds well below what you'd normally shoot at without a tripod or flash.

These were taken at a local restaurant, where they sometimes have live music in the bar area.

The lighting is pretty dim there, and I've been asked not to use a flash, as this type of photography is distracting to the patrons. I feel pretty sure they'd complain about a tripod, too (not to mention the inconvenience of lugging one around).

In light this low, you've got to catch your subjects when they're relatively still to keep blur from subject movement down. IOW, the majority of the photos taken will probably have a touch of motion blur if your timing isn't that good shooting people at slower shutter speeds.

If you add blur from camera shake into this equation, your percentage of keepers is going to go way down.
.

Here are some examples of where stabilization is beneficial, using a Sony DSLR-A700 with a Minolta 100mm f/2 Autofocus Lens.

These are all at ISO 3200, 1/40 second, f/2.5, Tungsten White Balance. Straight from the camera jpeg fine except for downsizing with Irfanview.





As with the last two, this next one is straight from the camera jpeg fine except for downsizing with Irfanview. As you can see from the blurred hand movement, it's probably not a good idea to jump to any conclusions over potential camera performance based on sharpness from these images (since shutter speeds are too slow to freeze any movement).

But, you don't have to worry about blur from camera shake at these shutter speeds with the Sony A700, because it's body based stabilization works with all of my lenses, including brighter primes like this Minolta 100mm f/2 AF lens.



This one was converted to .dng and converted from .dng to jpeg.



Here's another.. I made it a little larger. Straight from the camera jpeg fine except for downsizing using digiKam 0.9.2. If you want to see more about digiKam (a free Linux image management and editing solution), see this page:

http://www.digikam.org/?q=about/features09x

Sony DSLR-A700, Minolta 100mm f2 at f/2.5, 1/40 second, ISO 3200, Tungsten White Balance.



Here's one more at ISO 3200 using an even slower shutter speed. Personally, I'm thrilled that I can have a stabilized prime in low light like this.

Minolta 100mm f/2 at f/2.5, 1/20 second



--
JimC
------
http://www.pbase.com/jcockfield

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. 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.

Click to expand...

What a pointless post. Who cares about what was 20 or 30 years ago? If you think so, why do you own DSLRs and not an Nikon F with fully manual lenses?

When AF was introduced, some people said, who needs this?
When digital cameras were introduced, some people said, who needs this?

And so on. The same thing with image stabilisation. It is newer technology that helps to get photos that aren´t blurred due to camera shake. It isn´t magic but for some situations very helpful. No one says that image stabilisation makes a better photographer.

--
You made a picture...fine!

Ok Ill settle for "just over rated" then ;?)

But please read my comments again, I never said VR is useless, actually I said I like VR. I too would buy a VR lens over one without VR if they are the same in all other specs.

And BTW I shoot a lot of low light









--
l2u/l\Le

Rumle said:

Please understand that I never said that VR is
not beneficial.

Click to expand...

--

original subject line - "TO HELL WITH VR!!!"

body of original post - "I hate VR"

How do you go from that to, "I never said VR is not beneficial" and "I LIKE VR"

???????????????????????????

I agree with your premise. I got along fine before VR came along. But the VR does add another tool to the bag in the event that I need it. I must say that before I got the 70-200 VR I wasn't sure how much of a benefit it would be, but it sure is nice to have a stabilized image through the viewfinder, especially when I have the TC on it.

--
http://www.warrenlophotography.com

Try getting this, hand held, without VR:

Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR
1/30s f/5.6 at 550.0mm iso400



RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

cornstalker said:

cornstalker said:

Please understand that I never said that VR is
not beneficial.

Click to expand...

--

original subject line - "TO HELL WITH VR!!!"

body of original post - "I hate VR"

How do you go from that to, "I never said VR is not beneficial" and
"I LIKE VR"

???????????????????????????

Click to expand...

In my first post I said I like VR, and that I do find it usefull !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

also the first Sentense in the first post was some what sarcastic, I did end the line with a - think about it, would anybody switch to a discontinued brand just to avoid one feature, seriously?

--
l2u/l\Le

I propably couldn't, but I would never take that shot in the first place. (please read my OP carefully, reading some of the other posts in this thread would not hurt either)

To help you out here are some quotes:

"...Yes I do own VR lenses, and yes I do find the feature usefull from time to time..."

"...at least stop saying that VR makes up for the lost f/...."

--
l2u/l\Le

From my OP:

"...Yes I do own VR lenses, and yes I do find the feature usefull from time to time..."

I like this one better

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/image/90800880

did you use a tripod?
--
l2u/l\Le

Rumle said:

I like this one better

Click to expand...

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/image/90800880
Thanks!

Rumle said:

did you use a tripod?

Click to expand...

Nope. Hand held. Braced, with elbows on the ground.

Actually, you and I agree about VR. Especially now that I have a D3

I could care less about VR for most of my short to wide lenses. Not only is VR is useful for some lenses in some situations, but it's also useful as a marketing tool.

If I had the choice between the VR-less Nikon 17--55 (which I own) or the Canon 17-55 IS (and they both fit on my camera) I'd chose the Nikon. It's better built, weather-sealed, and according to most tests I've read, the Nikon is optically better than the Canon.

There are relatively few times where I feel handicapped by not having VR on my 10.5, 14-24, 28 1.4, or 17-55 lenses mounted on a D3. On the other hand, I wish my 85 1.4 had VR

I'm afraid though, that for the public masses, many would chose an image stabilized optically so-so lens over a similar great piece of glass with no image stabilization.

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

I agree that there are some posts saying how crummy the 17-55 is and how great the 16-85 is.

I own the 17-55/2.8, 17-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 35-70/2.8, 28-70/2.8 and the 16-85/2.8 so I think I am pretty neutral here.

I do believe that the 16-85 is designed to be better than a typical consumer lens, which may be why it is more expensive then the others.

Rich H