When is a tripod redundant?

Started Jul 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
AllOtherNamesTaken Veteran Member • Posts: 3,563
Buy a 16-35VR

The wider the lens with VR, the slower you're going to be able to shoot.

I can get sharp photos handheld no problem at 1/4 and 1/8 second on my 16-35VR. Maybe not a 1/2 second like in your example, but close. For hiking or places where it isn't possible or convenient to bring a tripod, that is a HUGE advantage. I routinely get photos I simply would not be able too because I am somewhere where a tripod wouldn't be usable. It's good enough for proper waterfall shots as well as long as the water is moving at a reasonable rate. Some people say VR is useless on wide angle but it was a main selling feature for me, and I use it often.

Obviously for long exposures, absolutely critical sharpness, macro, proper panoramas, etc. a tripod is very necessary. However in scenarios where you are unable to carry a tripod, you can get by pretty well with the right lens.

On the other end of the spectrum, I would say after around 2-3 X your focal length you don't need VR. For example if you shot at 75mm, 1/160 would probably be OK but 1/250 or 1/320 would be almost guaranteed OK.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow