(Nikkor) DX vs. DX w/VR

[Clikon]

To anyone using the 50-200mm Nikkor DX lens OR the DX with VR...

If you have the VR one, do you like it? Do you feel it's worth the extra money?

If you don't have the VR, do you wish you had it?

Let's assume you're all using a tripod most of the time to make it even. My main question is "Will I regret not spending the little extra for vibration reduction?"

It just occurred to me that perhaps some don't like VR, but I can't imagine what the reason might be.

 

[Craddosk]

You don't use VR on a tripod, it makes vibrations that can make their way into the shot. Handheld, I would go for it all the time.

If your tripoding it, don't get it. If you ever are shooting low light, no tripod, get it.

And, you can always turn it off!

 

[Socrates]

To anyone using the 50-200mm Nikkor DX lens OR the DX with VR...

If you have the VR one, do you like it? Do you feel it's worth the extra money?

If you don't have the VR, do you wish you had it?

Let's assume you're all using a tripod most of the time to make it even. My main question is "Will I regret not spending the little extra for vibration reduction?"

It just occurred to me that perhaps some don't like VR, but I can't imagine what the reason might be.

I have the 18-200 VR and I'm thrilled with it. The only downside is that I have to keep reminding myself that the VR does nothing for subject movement. I took some shots of my granddaughter. The furniture looked great but she was blurred!

The 18-200 has VR-II, which is really neat. If you allow it to do so, it will automatically detect the direction of panning and it will disable VR in that direction while maintaining VR in the other direction.

 

[Clikon]

Oh the wonder of online forums...whatever did we do without them?? Thanks to both of you. I wasn't aware that you could turn VR off. I don't care if it says I'm "moving up", I'm going to be a noob for a while.

 

[Craddosk]

Yep. You can turn the VR off the same way you switch between AF and MF on the lens. It's just another switch. I would get it with the VR, assuming that the extra bit of cash isn't an issue.

 

[Clikon]

I would get it with the VR, assuming that the extra bit of cash isn't an issue.

Good call. I think I will, not that money isn't an issue, it is. But I think, for the 50-200mm, I'm only looking at a difference of like, $50...or 5 cups of coffee at starbucks. A noble sacrifice.

 

[sabbath999]

On the particular lens you are talking about, the 55-200, the VR version is a significant upgrade... it has much better optics than the non-VR version for virtually no money difference.

I don't shoot on tripods (I don't own a camera tripod), so I can't really answer your question. I personally think tripods are quite overused in modern photography. Unless you are shooting a very low shutter speed or a very long lens, you generally don't need one.

If all things are equal, and it is only a small price difference, go with the VR.

However, if there is a large price difference (like the $1000 difference between the 80-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR) then it most certainly isn't worth it for many types of photography.

 

[Clikon]

I don't shoot on tripods (I don't own a camera tripod), so I can't really answer your question. I personally think tripods are quite overused in modern photography. Unless you are shooting a very low shutter speed or a very long lens, you generally don't need one.

As a noob, I learn something photographically earth-shaking just about every time I come on here. I'm glad to hear this from you. I know you disapprove of my selection ("beginner's do not buy the D40"), but I'm glad to hear that you don't use a tripod. I think in the back of my mind, I've been wondering why tripods are so popular. It seems that for all the money and technology that goes into today's dSLR's (as well as other cameras), that they should be capable of performing without a tripod.

 

[evo5gsr]

As a noob, I learn something photographically earth-shaking just about every time I come on here. I'm glad to hear this from you. I know you disapprove of my selection ("beginner's do not buy the D40"), but I'm glad to hear that you don't use a tripod. I think in the back of my mind, I've been wondering why tripods are so popular. It seems that for all the money and technology that goes into today's dSLR's (as well as other cameras), that they should be capable of performing without a tripod.

I don't think he disapproves with your pruchase as long as you know what you're getting into.

Image stabilization can't help you with night photography.

 

[brileyphotog]

VR is worth the extra money. However, VR and tripods are two different animals. Tripods are still necessary for some types of shooting. Can you shoot handheld at night relying on your digital ISO to save you or your VR lens to give you that extra stop or two? Yes. Will it look as good as a long exposure at lower ISO done on a tripod? Hardly ever.

I never needed a tripod until I needed one...if that makes any sense

 

[Mav]

I had a 55-200 non-VR and ended up selling it. It worked great during the day but in marginal light the combination of the lightness of the lens didn't allow you to stabilize it very well which made getting sharp shots extremely difficult. I also ended up wanting more than 200mm, so I upgraded to the 70-300VR. The 55-200VR is a great low cost lens.

 

[petey]

I am saving up for the 18-200 VR and cannot wait to get my hands on it before we go to Honolulu in April. I might just sell the 18-55 and 55-200 if it doesn't make sense to keep them. The 18-55 has come through so much though.