If you could only have one VR lens...

[nickzou]

Which would it be? I recently sold my D80+Sigma 80-50mm to help pay for my new D7000. I have two telephotos and two primes (only one of them is decent) and I kinda want one VR lens. If you could choose just one VR lens, which would it be?

 

[Kerbouchard]

If I could only have one...
AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II

 

[Derrel]

70-200 f/2.8 VR-II most likely. Why? Price, features, focal length range,size and weight.

 

[480sparky]

The 600 f/4. I can live without VR in all the shorter lenses.

 

[chaosrealm93]

70-200 on a full frame body, either canon or nikon would be fine

 

[KmH]

VR, or any other version of image stabilization, really isn't needed for focal lengths of less than 200 mm if good camera holding technique is used.

 

[table1349]

Gitzo GT5541LS legs with an RSS BH-55 and you have not only lens stabilization but body stabilization as well. No power drain on the batteries, less likely hood of it breaking. Can last a lifetime with a little care from time to time.

 

[Derrel]

VR, or any other version of image stabilization, really isn't needed for focal lengths of less than 200 mm if good camera holding technique is used.

Nonsense,Keith. Use your noggin a bit more.'Imagine' what VR can be utilized to do. Think about boats; ferry boats;combines; tractors; panning; windy locations; shooting while out of breath or under extreme adrenaline rushes; shooting hand-held at 1/3 second at 150mm with Active VR enabled because at that speed, the human body is "a moving platform". Think of helicopters. Tour buses. Small planes. Vibrating or swaying platforms of all types. VR has many,many,many uses, and it works under conditions in which a tripod cannot function, because the function is entirely different from what a tripod does.

 

[joealcantar]

70-200 f/2.8 VR-II most likely. Why? Price, features, focal length range,size and weight.

-
2nd this.... If I had one and do have it this would be the one.

 

[table1349]

VR, or any other version of image stabilization, really isn't needed for focal lengths of less than 200 mm if good camera holding technique is used.

Nonsense,Keith. Use your noggin a bit more.'Imagine' what VR can be utilized to do. Think about boats; ferry boats;combines; tractors; panning; windy locations; shooting while out of breath or under extreme adrenaline rushes; shooting hand-held at 1/3 second at 150mm with Active VR enabled because at that speed, the human body is "a moving platform". Think of helicopters. Tour buses. Small planes. Vibrating or swaying platforms of all types. VR has many,many,many uses, and it works under conditions in which a tripod cannot function, because the function is entirely different from what a tripod does.

Sorry, but VR isn't that great for helicopters, tour buses etc. That's why we spent in excess of $10,000.00 for a gyroscopic platform for use in our helicopter at work.

 

[Derrel]

I bought the 70-200 VR-1 version the week it came out. I payed $1,699 for it from my local camera dealer during a period when the one "Big" New York dealer was selling it at an almost obscene price mark-up, scalping the lenses they Had, basically. I had owned the Nikkor 80-400 VR for a 18 months or so, and had used that lens extensively, so I was pretty sold on what VR could do. One of the undocumented uses is using the "Active Mode" when hand-holding at the ridiculous ranges like 1/2 to 1/6 second or 1/8 second, which is well below what one would normally try. I was told about switching from Normal to Active VR at the reallllllly slow speeds, and not too surprisingly, it works, since Active is designed to cancel out really MAJOR vibrations; as we know, the human body is a mass of creaking joints, pumping heart, and twitchy muscles...at very long speeds, by using a wall or door jamb or other support,it is possible to get sharp shots at tele lengths, at really ridiculously long speeds. VR is good for scenic shots and for-the-record shots, where deep DOF is needed via stopping down and slowing the shutter way down.

The 70-200/2.8 is a pretty useful lens due to its aperture and focal length range. On the Nikon bodies that allow you more than one in-camera crop size (like say 1.5x and 2.0x), the 70-200 length is super-handy!

 

[Derrel]

Weak sauce Keith,weak sauce....where's your "good camera holding technique" reply??? VR works, and it works incredibly well. Your consistent campaign of disinformation on VR's usefulness is as tiresome as your copyright harping posts day after day,month after month, year after year...

How well do you find "good camera holding" to work when you've been stalking a black bear for three hours through the woods, and your heart is bursting in your chest and you'll get three seconds to shoot a hand-held burst before he bolts? How well does "good camera holding" work in the Columbia Gorge when photographing windsurfers in gusting, 45 mile per hour winds? How well does "good camera holding" technique work as your boat rolls up and down the swells on the Pacific Ocean while trolling at 4 knots for chinook salmon in gusting September winds? Seriously man, you must not be using your brain when you consistently deny that VR is useless below 200mm in length!

Address the issue of Nikon's VR technology, and quit bragging about your company's gyroscope. Stay on point. Let's hear from you how lousy and useless VR is...when those of us who have had it since its inception have already figured out myriad ways to use it to ADVANCE our capabilities...I'm dying to hear your ideas on how useless it is.

Oh, and I hear Nikon needs a new Engineer in the VR DON'T WORK department--you ought to apply for the job!!