Vibration Reduction?

[Milo2]

I'm looking at various lenses and I hope someone can help me understand the advantages or disadvantages of using a VR lens in sports photography.

I've noticed that several shooters in this forum turn VR off when shooting sports. Why? I think it has something to do with having no advantage at high shutter speeds. If that's the reason, how high do you have to go to lose the advantage? (Or, alternatively, how slow would I have to shoot to get the advantage?)

I also shoot dance/stage where the shutter speeds are not typically as fast as what I shoot in soccer. Would using a VR lens give an advantage at 1/320 or 1/400?

Thanks.

 

[Ferguson]

There are several issues.

VR is not useful for image capture above maybe 1000th, or maybe even 500th. So generally speaking for action sports photography it is not useful.

It also adds cost to a kit if the alternative of a non-VR lens is available, e.g. the 80-200 for NIkon vs the 70-200's. So some note the "not needed" and head down that route.

There is also some indications from some bloggers that VR is harmful above a certain shutter speed. I suspect this depends a lot on the lens, and the type of motion, and personally think the jury is out on whether it really ever does harm.

It is also worth noting that "Sports" does not always mean action - often it is shots of crowds, athletes on the sidelines, celebrations, and other relatively low action scenes, where low shutter speed allows for higher quality (lower ISO) or deeper DOF, and in those cases VR can be quite helpful. This is particularly true for longer lenses when one turns them from a bright playing field and toward a much darker audience.

Finally, for some lenses and situations, especially very long lenses, you might find VR helpful to keep the image more stabilized int he viewfinder. I find that true with the 80-400 @ 400 handheld at times, and for the 400/2.8 in windy conditions, like surf photography, where the hood acts like a sail and is continually shaking the lens on a monopod.

But... I would agree that most of the time I have VR turned off while shooting.

 

[scokill]

I'm looking at various lenses and I hope someone can help me understand the advantages or disadvantages of using a VR lens in sports photography.

I've noticed that several shooters in this forum turn VR off when shooting sports. Why? I think it has something to do with having no advantage at high shutter speeds. If that's the reason, how high do you have to go to lose the advantage? (Or, alternatively, how slow would I have to shoot to get the advantage?)

I also shoot dance/stage where the shutter speeds are not typically as fast as what I shoot in soccer. Would using a VR lens give an advantage at 1/320 or 1/400?

Thanks.

So vibration reduction helps with camera shake which is you/camera moving inducing blur. The shutter speed is what freezes action of moving subjects. I've read everything about VR and while I understand it all conceptually and have see various opinions, I've found no difference of VR being on or off shooting action, most of which is in low light/higher ISO. With that being said, I blindly follow the rule and turn it off.

You could argue that a blurred shot is better than no shot, but I would rather have a noisy unblurred shot than less noise/motion blur. It depends on the sport, but I look at 1/500 as a minimum but strive for 1/800 or better and trade off with ISO from there.

VR will provide benefit for relatively stationary subjects under 1/focal length shutter speed just as a general rule. It would not give you an advantage shooting dance/stage at 1/320 or 1/400...at least in my experience.

 

[garykohs]

I'm not currently a Nikon shooter but the rule is the same, Turn off VR / IS (Canon) / OS (Sigma) / VC (Tamron) if you're shooting at less than the reciprocal of the focal length. So I'm I'm shooting a Canon 7D2 (1.6 crop factor) with a 300/4 IS L lens I have an effective focal length of 480mm. So I would want to turn off IS (in the Canon case) unless my shutter speed falls below 1/500 sec.

That's a pretty good rule because IS/VR/OS/VC can actually introduce some blur at any focal length (which is why it's better to use a tripod - without IS/VR/OS/VC - if you can and you need blur free photos of stationary objects).

But these VR etc. lenses are getting better all the time, so your mileage might vary. My old Canon 100-400 L1, for example, is usually better without IS turned on. On a more modern lens you might never notice an advantage to having VR etc. turned off.

 

[nafik]

Check this out.

all you need to know

All About Nikon VR | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan

All About Nikon VR (vibration reduction) systems

www.dslrbodies.com

 

[Ferguson]

Check this out.

all you need to know

http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/lens-technique/all-about-nikon-vr.html

He's very good, but what is frustrating about the subject matter is most of what he says is knowledge from users, experimentation, casual discussions, etc.

It is a shame that Nikon is not a bit more forthcoming on these issues. One of the most confusing aspects of VR (and maybe relevant to sports) is this warning in the D5 manual (page 325 in online reference):

"The lenses listed below are not recommended for long exposures or photographs taken at high ISO sensitivities, as due to the design of the vibration reduction (VR) control system the resulting photos may be marred by fog. We recommend turning vibration reduction off when using other VR lenses".

The list includes lenses like the 70-200 VR (I) and the 400/2.8 ED, two very popular sports lenses.

Note that the statement says "or" high ISO, seeming to imply these lenses are affected at high ISO for any shutter speed, and SEEMS to imply that turning the VR off will not correct it, since the closing statement says for "other" VR lenses you should turn them off.

The statement also seems to imply this is a lens issue, which would seem to also imply it is not specific to the D5.

I have yet to see any clarity brought to that statement by Nikon, though there was lots of speculation and parsing of the precise grammar (undoubtedly translated).

I also do not recall seeing anything directly from Nikon saying "VR Off at high shutter because it can make the image worse". Has that been officially said? Note I am not disputing it may be true -- I am lamenting that we do not have official guidance from Engineers for a lot of these things, only user-developed wisdom.

 

[Milo2]

I've learned much; thanks to all.

However, I'm still undecided about which lenses to buy. Please stop reading if you don't want to witness my mental paralysis of the past week . . . but it appears that If 90% of my shots are 1/500 or faster, and if I use a monopod and/or better holding techniques I would save myself loads of money by buying non-VR lenses without much penalty. Is that right?

If it is I could avoid paying $2,100 for a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII (although I'm sure I would be very happy with the lens, even if I ever turn on the VR). Instead I could pick up (as was suggested) a Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED for $1,200. And I could save even more buying a Tamron 70-200 2.8 di LD for $769. It appears that folks really like both lenses, so why not if VR isn't a requirement?

Likewise, I could buy a Nikon 24-70 2.8 ED VR for $2,400. Or, I could buy a Nikon 24-70 2.8 ED for $1,800. Or, I could also pick up a Sigma 18-35 1.8 for $800, which could save me enough to pick up another lens (like a superzoom, perhaps?).

So the non-VR alternatives sound great to me, but then I notice that the new VR lenses also claim better optics and design, so perhaps the higher price is still worth it.

Ugh! There's loads of information out there, but none of it that makes the decision for me!

 

[Ferguson]

I've learned much; thanks to all.

However, I'm still undecided about which lenses to buy. Please stop reading if you don't want to witness my mental paralysis of the past week . . . but it appears that If 90% of my shots are 1/500 or faster, and if I use a monopod and/or better holding techniques I would save myself loads of money by buying non-VR lenses without much penalty. Is that right?

If it is I could avoid paying $2,100 for a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII (although I'm sure I would be very happy with the lens, even if I ever turn on the VR). Instead I could pick up (as was suggested) a Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED for $1,200. And I could save even more buying a Tamron 70-200 2.8 di LD for $769. It appears that folks really like both lenses, so why not if VR isn't a requirement?

Likewise, I could buy a Nikon 24-70 2.8 ED VR for $2,400. Or, I could buy a Nikon 24-70 2.8 ED for $1,800. Or, I could also pick up a Sigma 18-35 1.8 for $800, which could save me enough to pick up another lens (like a superzoom, perhaps?).

So the non-VR alternatives sound great to me, but then I notice that the new VR lenses also claim better optics and design, so perhaps the higher price is still worth it.

Ugh! There's loads of information out there, but none of it that makes the decision for me!

There are a couple of considerations.

One is that wide angles need VR less than telephotos. I have a 24-70 that is not VR, and I'm perfectly happy with it. I wondered when I purchased why no VR, I thought about waiting for it to come out (2013 so way early). But in reality I do not miss it at all.

A 70-200 however will need VR more frequently in the same lighting. Will you need to shoot with low shutter speed? Only you can say. I see sports shooters frequently with 80-200's, or with older longer lenses without VR. THought.... (keep reading below).

Despite needing it more for long glass, as you get into the really expensive long glass, a used non-VR will save you so much money it might be very hard to turn down. Sure, it makes it harder to swing it into the dark parts of the field and shout the crowds, but (a) you'll have it on a monopod so naturally more steady, and (b) well, it's SO much money, maybe it does not matter.

The 70-200 is a bit of a different beast. It is so useful for so many things, I would try to stretch for VR in that. It's that cliche sports lens that you will have on your camera so very often, in so many conditions, that the extra $1000 or so may be worth considering.

One final consideration just to make your paralysis worse: be careful getting lenses so old that you cannot get parts, at least without that playing into your consideration. There is some really terrific, really old glass out there otherwise perfect, but might not have an auto-focus motor that works and Nikon no longer makes them. I do not know if Nikon will tell you which are which, but internet searches may help.

 

[nafik]

I'm looking at various lenses and I hope someone can help me understand the advantages or disadvantages of using a VR lens in sports photography.

I've noticed that several shooters in this forum turn VR off when shooting sports. Why? I think it has something to do with having no advantage at high shutter speeds. If that's the reason, how high do you have to go to lose the advantage? (Or, alternatively, how slow would I have to shoot to get the advantage?)

I also shoot dance/stage where the shutter speeds are not typically as fast as what I shoot in soccer. Would using a VR lens give an advantage at 1/320 or 1/400?

Thanks.

IMHO VR for sports is waste of money. That is a short answer.

If the lens has it, good, if not do not worry about it.

I shoot soccer and bike racing quite often and always shut off VR. Both are very fast sports. Do I get soft images? Yes, but not too often. If I get 15-20 keepers from 400-600 shots per game or race, I am happy, but mostly what I I delete is compositional trash. If it as a great shot and only I can tell if it is soft, it stays.

Lately I am shooting with a cheapo 55-300, a $400 lens that came in a kit. It totally replaced my $1800 80-200 because of it's range. VR is always off on it. At 1/1000 sec nobody needs VR. It is a bit slow to focus, but I can live with it. I know that this $400 lens is not the reason why I did not get invited to shoot world cup.

All I am trying to say is and there is no replacement for good camera handling. Spending crazy money on equipment, unless it is your livelihood, is silly at best. Most of the viewers cannot tell the difference between so-so and great and are quite happy with "good enough". That includes even paying customers.

 

[John_G]

I also turn off VS when I shoot sports (Lacrosse in mid day sun). My 120-300 f/s.8 is mounted on a gimbal one hand sitting on top of the lens and the other on the camera. The camera is pretty stable. The camera my pan but it's not going to vibrate/shake.

Happy shooting!

-john