At what focal length do you think VR becomes necessary?

[nickzou]

I found that VR is quite superfluous at 50mm-70mm range. At what focal length do you think VR becomes genuinely useful?

 

[Trever1t]

VR allows shooting at shutter speeds slower than without, at any focal length although probably less necessary at focal lengths below 50mm. I wish my 24-70 had it

 

[Overread]

Depends a bit - a 70-200mm f2.8 it can be well worth having VR (or IS in canon's case) after a few hours and the weight starts to take its toll on the ability to hold steady at slower speeds. So its not totally a focal length factor, but also a weight one.

However in general I'd day that VR/IS is a game changer for 200mm+ focal length lenses - where it provides not only increased stability support for hand holding, but also allows for a smoother viewfinder image which makes composition, framing and focusing a lot easier (even a steady hand with a heavier longer lens results in wobble and VR/IS takes the edge off it quite considerably.

Sub 200mm and I'd say its a desirable addition to have for when working in lower lighting with stiller subjects and also a valid addition for heavier lenses (oft zooms) where the weight makes a more noticeable impact upon long term handholding stability.

 

[Jarmo]

I know I'd like one on my 70-200 f4

 

[jritz]

Technically in a perfect situation VR would never be necessary because with a proper shutter speed (i'd say at least 2x focal length) you would get no camera shake. But then you start running into low light situations where you don't want to sacrifice IQ so you try to keep the ISO lower causing your shutter to dip lower and this is when VR becomes necessary. So I guess the answer to the question would depend on your situation. I definitely think its more beneficial for longer focal lengths in low light (100mm and over).

 

[tirediron]

It's never necessary, but it is a desirable luxury on anything >200mm.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I think it depends on the shooter. Not only their ability to keep the camera stable, but also how they shoot. Personally, I only have IS on one lens (70-200 2.8 ). I could probably do without since I don't shoot in low light too often, but I do like a nice calm viewfinder when composing, so its nice in that aspect. I would definately trade the IS on my 70-200 for having IS on my 400mm if that was possible haha.

 

[480sparky]

I think there is no single answer to this question. It all depends on the situation and the person behind the camera.

 

[gsgary]

If you shoot sport you don't need it on any length

 

[Hardrock]

If you shoot sport you don't need it on any length

Not disagreeing with you but what about panning?

 

[Railphotog]

I think there is no single answer to this question. It all depends on the situation and the person behind the camera.

That's what I think too. The 18-55mm lens with IS that came with my camera has allowed me to take some photos at really slow shutter speeds, where flash would not have been practical. Can't recall how slow I went, perhaps 1/8 sec., but it was something I would not have even tried without IS.

 

[gsgary]

If you shoot sport you don't need it on any length

Not disagreeing with you but what about panning?

600mm no IS

 

[nickzou]

What about a low light situation? Like indoor chess-boxing or something (yes, that's a sport)?

 

[gsgary]

What about a low light situation? Like indoor chess-boxing or something (yes, that's a sport)?

If they are moving IS is not going to help
300mm @ 1/320

 

[honoryourlife]

I'd say anything over 200mm +.

But I wouldn't say its a necessity. I rarely use mine on my Siggy and my 24-70mm doesn't have it.

But I shoot a lot of fast moving subjects, in low light and in bright light. I've never really have used it, but its nice to know its there if I ever want to use it.