How Important is VR?

[AduNeButt]

I'm looking to buy a new lens for my D60, specifically a 70-300mm. I've found quite a few without VR for around $100 and with VR for $400-$450. So my question is since the D60 relies on the lens for VR, as the body doesn't have any such feature, should I spend up to four times as much JUST for VR? I've never shot without VR, so I'm not really experienced on just how much it helps. I do have a tripod, but I'd still want to take some pictures by hand and I'm not sure how hard that is without VR. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

 

[benlonghair]

I have the 70-300 VR. It's quite impressive. Seeing the view go from bouncing around handheld to looking like it's on a tripod is amazing. Well worth it IMO.

 

[KmH]

VR is definately a plus on telephoto lenses.

In the case of the 2 lenses you have mentioned the difference is much more than just VR.

The less expensive lens only has 13 glass elements in 9 groups. The more expensive lens has 17 glass elements in 12 groups, so the diffference in cost is not just the VR.

The better IQ of the VR lens, even with VR turned off, is well worth the money.

 

[tnvol]

It's very important to me. It really makes a difference.

 

[sburatorul]

i was under the impression that the less glass elements a lens has... the better the IQ... probably the vr version has better IQ cause its a more recent version not because of the bigger elements number.

 

[CW Jones]

I was like you and thought IS (Canons version) was sort of pointless.... until I tried it out, 3 pictures at different focal lengths, one set with IS on, and the other 3 with IS off. AMAZING difference when the IS was turned on, well worth it IMO.

It was also done with a 70-300mm lens, just for a Canon

 

[AduNeButt]

Thanks for the replies, I think I'll stick with VR equipped lenses.

 

[KmH]

i was under the impression that the less glass elements a lens has... the better the IQ... probably the vr version has better IQ cause its a more recent version not because of the bigger elements number.

Yes and no, particularly in a zoom lens.

Lens designers definately try to use as little glass as possible. They also strive to minimize the number of air gaps, which is one of the reasons adding a UV filter for lens 'protection' makes little technical sense.

However, if your reasoning was true the very best glass would have just 2 elements, 1 at the front and 1 at the rear. Here is a 50mm prime lens that has 8 elements in 5 groups ($10,000.00).

I the case of these 2 Nikon lenses the extra elements better control chromatic aberation, among other things, though my original point was that the difference in cost was not solely due to VR.

 

[benlonghair]

Here is a 50mm prime lens that has 8 elements in 5 groups ($10,000.00).

That's mind-blowing. I can see a 600mm f4 being $10k but a 50mm!? Course, f/.95 is pretty amazing too.

 

[NateS]

Thanks for the replies, I think I'll stick with VR equipped lenses.

I wouldn't go that far at all. There are a ton of killer lenses out there that don't have VR. For example....every prime (fixed focal length) lens out there is a killer lens without having VR.

However when it comes to the 70-300 vs. 70-300VR the 70-300VR is far superior and 90% of that reason has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it has VR. The lens was a complete 100% redesign and is better optically all around.

So, don't bother saying that you are going to stick to only VR lenses (in my opinion). VR is not what makes a lens great specifically, it is just a feature that helps in lower light (though the same can be done with a fast prime). VR is useful, but it helps none in regards to the quality of the image except for the fact that it helps prevent camera shake in lower light.

 

[CW Jones]

Go test a VR lens out, I believe they will have the switch to turn it on and off, turn it off and snap a couple pictures of the same object in the distance, then turn the VR on and take the same picture with the same settings. you will more than likely see a difference. especially inside in low light

 

[FrankLamont]

It's not important, or necessary.

But it's a darn big help.

And it's worth it.

 

[ecnal]

However, if your reasoning was true the very best glass would have just 2 elements, 1 at the front and 1 at the rear. Here is a 50mm prime lens that has 8 elements in 5 groups ($10,000.00)

Damn! I would TOTALLY buy that if it were AF-S!

 

[NateS]

However, if your reasoning was true the very best glass would have just 2 elements, 1 at the front and 1 at the rear. Here is a 50mm prime lens that has 8 elements in 5 groups ($10,000.00)

Damn! I would TOTALLY buy that if it were AF-S!

Nah....it doesn't have VR....so it's crap

 

[sburatorul]

i was under the impression that the less glass elements a lens has... the better the IQ... probably the vr version has better IQ cause its a more recent version not because of the bigger elements number.

Yes and no, particularly in a zoom lens.

Lens designers definately try to use as little glass as possible. They also strive to minimize the number of air gaps, which is one of the reasons adding a UV filter for lens 'protection' makes little technical sense.

However, if your reasoning was true the very best glass would have just 2 elements, 1 at the front and 1 at the rear. Here is a 50mm prime lens that has 8 elements in 5 groups ($10,000.00).

I the case of these 2 Nikon lenses the extra elements better control chromatic aberation, among other things, though my original point was that the difference in cost was not solely due to VR.

i totally understand what you mean. when i said that the vr version is better cause its a more recent version i was thinking about the CA correction elements... i dont think i am making much sense... darn! btw, nice lens that noctilux but no vr and that is a total must at f0.95 )!