Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By KmH

Thread: VR -vs- non-VR

  1. #1
    Inbound Code Cool Site Moderator
    TPF Supporter

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    6,896
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    2703 times

    VR -vs- non-VR

    In researching vibration reduction, (VR,VC,IS, whatever the lens calls it) I have read a lot of articles that have compared the same lens, but VR -vs- non-VR and have found mixed results. I dont know if it is just a matter of taste, or if there is some validity to the claims that the non-VR lenses take a sharper picture than the same lens with VR. I have lenses with and without VR, but not of the same model or focal range to compare them myself. If anyone has been able to do the actual side by side comparison of the same lens with and without VR I would love to hear their opinion on it. When I purchased the faster zoom lenses, I opted for the non-VR versions partly because of price, and partly because I had been shooting with prime lenses mostly and been doing fine without VR. I know there are obvious advantages to VR to help with hand shake, and especially when you have longer shutter times, but are there any advantages to having the non-VR lenses or is it something to save up for and replace non-vr lenses with?



  2. #2
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,097
    My Gallery
    (0)
    Liked
    97 times
    Um, VR can always be disabled if you get better results without it ?

    In fact, its advised to do so if, for example, you use a tripod.
    Nikon D600 + AF-S 28mm+50mm f1.8 + AF-S 16-35mm+70-200mm f4 VR

  3. #3
    KmH
    KmH is offline
    Helping photographers learn to fish
    TPF Supporter

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    32,600
    My Gallery
    (1)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    3592 times
    You might find this article useful - http://bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm

    VR rule #1 - Unless it's needed, VR should be turned off.

    FWIW, using carriage return and paragraphs makes your posts more readable by adding white space.

    You have a lens that has VR, so you can just turn off the VR to do your own comparison.
    Solarflare and pixmedic like this.
    . . . . . . Keith . . . . . . .How Do I Use My Digital SLR?...
    Photography is at its core an attempt to represent the reality of light in a media that canít faithfully reproduce it.

  4. #4
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,465
    My Gallery
    (2)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    1411 times
    VR rocks, VRII Rock 'n' Rolls!

    I shot this portrait at 1/40 of a second at 155mm....


    _POR0551-Edit by Trever1t, on Flickr

    I can't do that at 70mm without VRII.

  5. #5
    Inbound Code Cool Site Moderator
    TPF Supporter

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    6,896
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    2703 times
    Quote Originally Posted by KmH View Post
    You might find this article useful - Nikon VR explained

    VR rule #1 - Unless it's needed, VR should be turned off.

    FWIW, using carriage return and paragraphs makes your posts more readable by adding white space.

    You have a lens that has VR, so you can just turn off the VR to do your own comparison.
    that article was pretty amazing. thanks. actually though, I had thought that the lessened quality in the VR lenses that I had read about was due to the physical addition of the VR tech (the added parts), and not due to the action of the VR actually working. I didnt think just turning off the VR would correct any alleged problems. I say alleged because i have not actually tested it myself.

    i suppose now i will have to try some test shots with my VRII lens and see if i can notice any difference. there seems to be a lot of different opinions on VR with supporters on both sides. Budget is what pushed me to the non VR lenses, and i guess only time (and money) will tell if i feel the need to upgrade to the VR versions at some point.

    so far i have been happy with the 17-50 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 non VR, and I have very steady hands. (which my patients are thankful for too) I havent really run into much of a need for a slow shutter speed yet, since for most of what I shoot i can correct lighting with a hot shoe flash and softbox or bounce card. (still trying to get the hang of those)
    I dont think practice will ever make me perfect, but I am pleased every time i see even a little improvement. Are there advantages to going with a slower shutter speed instead of extra lighting? or is it just a matter of whether or not you CAN get the lighting?

  6. #6
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,465
    My Gallery
    (2)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    1411 times
    There are times where lugging extra equipment isn't feasible and there are times where lighting isn't permitted! Think museums, churches etc.

  7. #7
    No longer a newbie, moving up!
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ghaziabad, India
    Posts
    67
    My Gallery
    (7)
    My Photos Are OK to Edit
    Liked
    0 times
    Well, VR helps you to take sharp shots at small shutter speed but it can do nothing when you have to shoot moving objects. Then only F/2.8 lenses can help.

    So, if you see yourself shooting stationary objects but in low light then VR is helpful or every thing else you need F/2.8.
    Nikon D7000 + AF-S 18-105 VR + AF-S 70-300 VR II + AF-S 35mm + Tamron AF 90mm Macro
    http://500px.com/prakhardeep
    https://secure.flickr.com/photos/prakhardeep/

  8. #8
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    5,459
    My Gallery
    (0)
    My Photos Are NOT OK to Edit
    Liked
    1863 times
    Every enhancement ever made to anything whatsoever has had its share of devotees and detractors. No mater what it is someone has praised it and someone has griped about it. VR is no different. If you like it, if you feel it helps with your shots, then it's a worthwhile tool. If you don't like it, if you feel it harms your shots, then don't get it or turn it off.

    I know one person who has gone so far as to glue the switches on all of his VR lenses so that it can NOT be enabled on them by accident. I personally have a small piece of plastic taped in the switch of one of my VR lenses so that it cannot be DISabled by accident (it kept hanging on my camera bag and getting turned off without my noticing it). Different strokes. Personally I like VR and would never even consider a new lens without it.
    Scott Craig - Nashville, TN - Nikon D7100, D7000, D90, D60
    My web site: Tennessee in Photographs

  9. #9
    TPF Junkie!
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,097
    My Gallery
    (0)
    Liked
    97 times
    Just follow KmH's link in this thread, its a very awesome and throughout discussion about when which VR is helpful or harmful.

    I would not always enable or always disable it.
    Nikon D600 + AF-S 28mm+50mm f1.8 + AF-S 16-35mm+70-200mm f4 VR

 

 

Ads

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

nikon vr lens vs non vr lens
,
nikon vr lenses vs non vr
,

nikon vr vs non vr

,

nikon vr vs non vr lens

,
non vr vs vr lens
,

vr lens vs non vr lens

,
vr lenses vs non vr
,

vr vs non vr

,

vr vs non vr lens

,
vr vs non vr lenses
Click on a term to search for related topics.