VR -vs- non-VR

pixmedic · Jun 12, 2012

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?

Solarflare · Jun 12, 2012

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.

KmH · Jun 12, 2012

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.

Trever1t · Jun 12, 2012

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.

pixmedic · Jun 12, 2012

KmH said:
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?

Trever1t · Jun 12, 2012

There are times where lugging extra equipment isn't feasible and there are times where lighting isn't permitted! Think museums, churches etc.

prakhardeep · Jun 15, 2012

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.

SCraig · Jun 15, 2012

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.

Solarflare · Jun 15, 2012

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.

dannylightning · Apr 25, 2016

well if you need a slow shutter speed and you need to hand hold that is where VR comes in.. without VR and a slow shutter speed you have a blury photo if its not on a tripod.. VR will help you get a non blury photo. but its not something that will be good for all situations.. at slow shutter speed and shooting a moving object with VR, it all depends on how fast the object is moving and how slow your shutter speed is. so in some situations VR does help with a moving object but once your shutter speed gets too slow or the object is moving at too fast of a speed you will not stop motion and have motion blur in the photo....

VR will come in handy for quite a few things.. at a fast enough shutter speed you will not need it. VR is great for some things when your shutter speed gets on the low side other times it may not be able to help but its sure nice to have..

i usually keep the VR turned on no matter what on my lenses. not sure why but i do not notice a difference with it on or off as far as image quality goes... i usually try to shoot at 1/500 threw 1/2000 shutter speed since i do allot of wild life shots, at those shutter speeds i notice no difference at all with it on or off.

personally i want VR on my lenses, it could come in really handy at times. for me its not going to be needed that often for what i usually shoot but there are times i will be shooting something where it does come in handy..

robbins.photo · Apr 25, 2016

dannylightning said:
i usually keep the VR turned on no matter what on my lenses. not sure why but i do not notice a difference with it on or off as far as image quality goes... i usually try to shoot at 1/500 threw 1/2000 shutter speed since i do allot of wild life shots, at those shutter speeds i notice no difference at all with it on or off.

personally i want VR on my lenses, it could come in really handy at times. for me its not going to be needed that often for what i usually shoot but there are times i will be shooting something where it does come in handy..

For me it comes down to a cost equation, you can get some pretty spectacular deals on some of the 70-200's without VR, and for as little as I use VR it doesn't make sense for me personally to be spending almost twice as much on the lens that has it in preference to the lens that doesn't.

If I actually used VR more that of course would be a completely different story, but I really don't shoot much at shutter speeds where VR comes into play. But like everything else camera, you need to find what works for you and stick with it.. lol. If you make more use of the VR function then it might well be worth it for you to invest in lenses with that capability.

I am rather interested in that Sigma F4 - will have to do some reading on that today. I have a couple of other lenses on my wishlist first but that might be something worth adding to the bag at some point.