How important is VR?

Hi.

Might pick up a second hand Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 for my new D500. It doesn't have vibration reduction. How important is this?

DaveSpoon said:

Hi.

Might pick up a second hand Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 for my new D500. It doesn't have vibration reduction. How important is this?

Click to expand...

I shot for over 30 years without VR lenses, so don't get hung up on the hype that you need to have it. It all depends on the situation.

The Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 is a great lens -- worth every bit of what you pay for it. That said, I opted for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (original screw-drive, and now the VC version). I like the VC (VR) with that lens for low-light shooting, but the original version was sharper -- much more like the Nikkor, so it was a better deal at the time. It's often referred to as the "Poor Man's Pro Nikkor."

In any case, a shot taken at 1/15 sec will still have subject movement, even with VR/VC. The difference is that the rest of the image will be sharper and you can shoot at ISO 100 instead of ISO 800 to get similar results (and therefore less grain, more dynamic range...) Where the real difference appears is when you're shooting in very low light and you have to use ISO 3200 or more just to get the shot, even at 1/15 sec. I rarely need to use a tripod like the "old days,"

The other factor is magnification. With a wide-normal lens like a 17-50, camera shake isn't as noticeable as with a 70-200. That's when VR/VC really shines. On the other hand, macro shots don't benefit much from vibration reduction -- the extreme magnification forces you to use more light or a higher ISO, because a shot taken at 1/15 sec. handheld will be blurry, no matter how much vibration reduction you attempt to apply -- use a tripod and buy a macro lens that doesn't have VR and shoot macro the right way.

So, if you've got a good deal on a used 17-55 and you think it's the optically best lens for you, then go for it. Otherwise, check out the Sigma or Tamron VR/VC/OS alternatives to save a few bucks.

DaveSpoon said:

Hi.

Might pick up a second hand Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 for my new D500. It doesn't have vibration reduction. How important is this?

Click to expand...

Image stabilization can be really helpful if you can't maintain a shutter speed of at least 1/focal length or faster. If you spend most of your time outdoors in daylight or use a flash, you might not even notice you don't have it.

It helps if you have a physical handicap like a quiver, tremor or shake. If you're healthy, it's not a critical requirement.

The 17-55 was one of Nikon's earliest DX lenses, and it isn't really made for the higher-resolution sensors we have today. There are sharper lenses you can use that are also less expensive. The closest one in terms of range and aperture is the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, which also happens to have image stabilization. Another option is the Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 VR, and another great one is the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8—this one doesn't have image stabilization.

Any form of image stabilization is only useful if you want to shoot static subjects handheld in fairly low light. If you can keep the shutter speed fast enough, you will have no use for VR.

It's very important within a range of situations. But most of the time I have no need for it.

This is one of those "How tasty are bananas?" questions! It's hard to say anything other than our own personal preference.

However - if you mention what you intend to photograph, your style of shooting, the other lenses you currently have and perhaps mention a brief analysis of the settings you find yourself most commonly using then someone may be able to give you a more apposite answer.

DaveSpoon said:

Hi.

Might pick up a second hand Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 for my new D500. It doesn't have vibration reduction. How important is this?

Click to expand...

To you? Have no idea! :-D

But to me it means nothing at all. Probably have to have this attitude towards VR since none of my glass have VR...

DaveSpoon said:

Might pick up a second hand Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 for my new D500. It doesn't have vibration reduction. How important is this?

Click to expand...

It depends on the subjects you want to shoot, the light you expect and how steady your hands are. If all those things combine to let you shoot at fast enough speeds the VR is totally unimportant; if they don't, it's vital.

Like a parachute - no use at all until you need it.

Thanks guys for your posts. I should have said what i will be shooting.

Want to eventually get into pet photography, but only a beginner. Will be taking photos of dogs at a dog shelter i volunteer for and dogs i walk. So a mixture of outdoor and indoor, but mostly outdoor i would say. Using the excellent autofocus and 10fps, i want to take lots of shots of dogs running around playing. But obviously some portrait stuff also. But just learning my trade at the moment!

Pro Pet photographers mostly seem to use 24-70mm and 70-200mm mostly. So as the D500 is not full frame, I am thinking of the 17-55mm to take the place of the 24-70!! But will look into the Tamron mentioned also.

So do you think i'll need VR much? I can get a Nikon 17-55mm second hand for approx 600 euros. 3 years old.

VR seems to get misunderstood. It helps by restricting small movements made by your camera and has ZERO effects on a moving subject.

So VR will be useless shooting "dogs running around playing"

If I may - I also suggest you look into what none pro's are using. A lot can be done equally as well with far less than the highest spec equipment.

DaveSpoon said:

Thanks guys for your posts. I should have said what i will be shooting.

Want to eventually get into pet photography, but only a beginner. Will be taking photos of dogs at a dog shelter i volunteer for and dogs i walk. So a mixture of outdoor and indoor, but mostly outdoor i would say. Using the excellent autofocus and 10fps, i want to take lots of shots of dogs running around playing. But obviously some portrait stuff also. But just learning my trade at the moment!

Pro Pet photographers mostly seem to use 24-70mm and 70-200mm mostly. So as the D500 is not full frame, I am thinking of the 17-55mm to take the place of the 24-70!! But will look into the Tamron mentioned also.

So do you think i'll need VR much? I can get a Nikon 17-55mm second hand for approx 600 euros. 3 years old.

Click to expand...

When shooting dogs running around outside you are probably going to use shutter speeds much faster than 1/80. In this case VR will be no help whatsoever. In fact, if you have a VR lens when shooting like this, you should turn the VR off.

Where VR might come in handy is when handheld shooting dissimulating dogs indoors, if you think shutter speeds will drop below 1/80 or so.

A 17-55 on a DX body such as the D500 is much like a 24-70 on an FX body (as angle of view - there are other differences as depth of field and compression). Therfore you'll use a lens like that as a basic event or group lens. The 70-200 (or similar tele lens) would allow you to isolate your subject (think busy background like other pets or distractions) as well as maintaining a safe distance (think snarling doberman, so there are certainly excellent reasons for a lens like that. (As well, VR works better for that kind of lens. )

As for the lens you're looking at, others have pointed out correctly that newer, higher-resolution sensors are making that lens pretty much obsolete. It was fine when the D2X was new, but there really wasn't many other choices then. It's definitely still an excellent lens, but there are now other options. If you're going to pay that kind of price, you might as well get a warranty. (Remember, that lens might actually be over 10 years old -- it might look okay, but is it, really -- check it out well before you commit.)

For what it's worth, my D7100 has more pixels than the D500, but my Tamron VC still does a pretty good job. Not fantastic like other lenses I have, but good.

Parry Johnson said:

A 17-55 on a DX body such as the D500 is much like a 24-70 on an FX body (as angle of view - there are other differences as depth of field and compression). Therfore you'll use a lens like that as a basic event or group lens. The 70-200 (or similar tele lens) would allow you to isolate your subject (think busy background like other pets or distractions) as well as maintaining a safe distance (think snarling doberman, so there are certainly excellent reasons for a lens like that. (As well, VR works better for that kind of lens. )

As for the lens you're looking at, others have pointed out correctly that newer, higher-resolution sensors are making that lens pretty much obsolete. It was fine when the D2X was new, but there really wasn't many other choices then. It's definitely still an excellent lens, but there are now other options. If you're going to pay that kind of price, you might as well get a warranty. (Remember, that lens might actually be over 10 years old -- it might look okay, but is it, really -- check it out well before you commit.)

For what it's worth, my D7100 has more pixels than the D500, but my Tamron VC still does a pretty good job. Not fantastic like other lenses I have, but good.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. Yes that's why I was thinking of the 17-55mm.

What do you think are the better options for me at that range? Better quality?

DaveSpoon said:

Thanks for the post. Yes that's why I was thinking of the 17-55mm.

What do you think are the better options for me at that range? Better quality?

Click to expand...

I guess what I'm saying is that any of the lenses in the 17-55 (f2.8, any manufacturer) are basic all-round workhorses for "normal" shooting -- you'll be satisfied with any of them, and they'll do a good job with what they're designed to do. You'll find that in most cases, getting a good picture depends much more on your ability to grab the correct exposure and impact -- that's not dependent on a lens or camera, but on you as a photographer.

There are time, however, when image quality is the most important thing, so although I use a 17-50 Tamron VC, I also have other lenses (primes, wide-angle zooms and tele zooms) for special situations. Here are a few to consider:

Sigma Art 18-35 f1.8 (which I haven't used): Limited range, but fast and well-rated. You'd have better overall image quality, but with no reach -- you'll probably end up swapping lenses a lot (unless you buy a backup body -- that's a completely new topic).

Sigma 10-20 (sold - I have an FX system as well, so I use a Nikkor 18-35D -- an oldie, but a goodie). Newer lenses are sharper at the edges, but you don't usually shoot wide-open with a wide-angle lens.

A good basic prime: Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX, 50mm f1.8 FX or 85mm f1.8 FX. The last one will likely become your "pet portrait" lens of choice. There are "exotics" such as Nikkor f1.4, DC or Zeiss Otus lenses, but for pets these are practically useless and way too expensive. If you need any of these, get them (much) later.

A good tele zoom: Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRII (really expensive, but really useful). You'll have to rent or borrow one first to see how good these lenses really are for action and reach - especially on a DX body. If you've got the money to start off with a D500, then this probably isn't a problem. Otherwise, consider third-party lenses like the Tamron VC and Sigma OS equivalent. They're not quite as good, but still excellent. Keeping with your original question, VR/VC/OS are really useful with these, as you can shoot at 1/250 with vibration reduction and get more keepers than with older non-VR versions of this lens. Get one of these first. (If you can't afford one of these, consider the Nikkor 70-300 VR FX or even the lowly 55-200 DX.)

Remember that any FX lens will be bigger and heavier than a DX lens, but you're using the centre "sweet spot" crop area of those lenses, so they usually are better quality, especially wide-open, then DX lenses. Plus, it give you the opportunity to expand to an FX body later on for even better image quality.

That's pretty much it for my wisdom. Now get out and have fun with the new toy.

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8, Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4.

As important as IS. I had Canon's version of the 17-55, with IS, and had it on most of the time.

DaveSpoon said:

Thanks guys for your posts. I should have said what i will be shooting.

Want to eventually get into pet photography, but only a beginner. Will be taking photos of dogs at a dog shelter i volunteer for and dogs i walk. So a mixture of outdoor and indoor, but mostly outdoor i would say. Using the excellent autofocus and 10fps, i want to take lots of shots of dogs running around playing. But obviously some portrait stuff also. But just learning my trade at the moment!

Pro Pet photographers mostly seem to use 24-70mm and 70-200mm mostly. So as the D500 is not full frame, I am thinking of the 17-55mm to take the place of the 24-70!! But will look into the Tamron mentioned also.

So do you think i'll need VR much? I can get a Nikon 17-55mm second hand for approx 600 euros. 3 years old.

Click to expand...

As has been mentioned, VR is only really useful when you're shooting a shutter speed that's slightly below the 1/focal length (reciprocal of the focal length) rule. It may help a tiny bit above, but how much it helps below is based on how many stops below it can stabilize (I.E. the VRII on the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G lens claims 4 stops below), So, based on the marketing bumph, you could *theoretically* shoot at 1/8 shutter without camera shake (I wouldn't know for certain as I have not used this lens).

Outdoors, I seriously doubt it would be useful to you unless you were taking twilight photos. Even on a shadowless, somewhat bright overcast day unless you were shooting f16 or smaller aperture your shutter speed should be fast enough to negate any shake at 55mm--and that's at ISO100.

Indoors might be another issue if you were planning to shoot there. If so that's where VR could possibly help you out, but that depends on how high you are comfortable pushing the D500's ISO up.