is VR important for a newbie?

[Dave Devoid]

Looking at lenses without VR as they are a little cheaper...Does the VR on a lens make that much difference...What did everyone do before VR? (Take Diazapam maybe)...

 

[SCraig]

Before we had VR we did two things: 1) We shot at the highest shutter speed we could manage, and actually "Pushed" the film a stop to gain a little bit more; 2) We learned to brace a camera using absolutely anything that was handy.

 

[Forkie]

I reckon if you're shooting at a focal length or shutter speed that requires the use of VR, you need a tripod. If you're using a tripod, you need to turn VR off anyway. Don't bother with VR if you can avoid it- it's a largely unnecessary extra cost (although I suspect most new lenses come with it whether you like it or not, these days).

 

[invisible]

It all depends on what you shoot. For example, if you shoot bands in pubs (i.e., very challenging conditions – low light, moving subjects) then by all means VR makes a huge difference. I only shoot landscapes, architecture and abstract/still life, so VR is not for me.

Unless you really shoot in very challenging conditions, I'd invest in a good tripod instead of spending the extra bucks on VR. You'll probably save money in the process, all your photos will probably look sharper, and you'll have an essential tool to shoot long exposures.

EDIT: Forkie beat me to it

 

[Derrel]

VR is very helpful when shooting in windy conditions, or when slightly out of breath, or when shooting "offhand", or when shooting one-handed, when shooting from unsteady platforms (like cars, buses, boats, ferry boats, boat docks, and so on), and when shooting photos with the lens stopped down to small apertures, to get more depth of field, such as when shooting travel or scenic photos. VR is also the single BEST-EVER advancement for shooting slow-speed panning photos...better than a tripod. For shooting in gusty or windy conditions, I think VR is also better than a tripod.

 

[SCraig]

I reckon if you're shooting at a focal length or shutter speed that requires the use of VR, you need a tripod. If you're using a tripod, you need to turn VR off anyway. Don't bother with VR if you can avoid it- it's a largely unnecessary extra cost (although I suspect most new lenses come with it whether you like it or not, these days).

I disagree. I'm a big fan of VR and wouldn't even consider a lens without it. This shot:

was taken hand-held at 112mm and 1/20 second. There is no way I could have gotten a shot that sharp at 1/20 second without VR. Admittedly it isn't tack-sharp, but it's a whole lot better than it would have been without VR.

 

[Rhoads238]

It's not that important but its nice to have. Depending on the version of vr the lens has it can add up to five extra stops. It's not always necessary but occasionally it will get you a shot that you may not have because of slow shutter speed. Its also great for video which is something to consider if you like to do that. However Nikon isn't the greatest camera for video because of the inability to change aperture on most lenses while shooting. But I don't mind because I don't shoot video.

 

[nmoody]

VR is extremely handy and highly recommended for learning and becomes less needed but still handy later on when you become more comfortable with how to use the camera. Plenty of people have learned without it and VR can sometimes handicap your learning if you constantly rely on it and ignore what its doing for you.

As SCraig mentioned there are situations even after you advance your skills where you can still find its uses.

I consider VR a nice to have but not a requirement. But if I have the choice I will always go for it.

 

[TheLost]

@SCraig
Can i ask why you had to shoot that image at 1/20th? It doesn't look like it was at night or indoors... If that cat would have 'twitched' just a little your shot would have been ruined.

Which leads me to...

It all depends on what you shoot. For example, if you shoot bands in pubs (i.e., very challenging conditions – low light, moving subjects) then by all means VR makes a huge difference.

Wrong... VR just lets you get a steady shot with a lower shutter.. It won't help at all if your subject is moving around.

If you look at my lenses right now VR is turned off on all of them (99% of my subjects move)... only a large aperture and high ISO will freeze motion in dark situations.

VR can help... but its not the 'save all' camera companies want you to think it is.

My Pentax K1000 didn't have VR... heck, it didn't even auto focus!

 

[Dave Devoid]

Thanks all..

Some really interesting comments...

Im guessing, staying away from Low shutter speeds and hanging off moving vehicles will help me capture a clear shot, without blurring..

Im guessing, if i can afford to get a lens with VR it would aid me in the beginning too...

Its just the lens i mentioned in a previous thread, which ill possibly be getting http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...or-55-200mm-f-4-5-6g-telephoto-zoom-lens.html does not have VR...

 

[SCraig]

@SCraig
Can i ask why you had to shoot that image at 1/20th? It doesn't look like it was at night or indoors... If that cat would have 'twitched' just a little your shot would have been ruined.

You're right, it would have been ruined, but I didn't have a lot of choices. Their pen is in a very shaded area of the zoo, and it was about an hour before sunset. It was actually a lot darker than the shot indicates. It was shot at ISO 800 and f/5 (EXIF data is in the image). F/5 is maximum aperture for the lens I was using at 112mm. I could have gone to ISO 1600 which would have given me 1/40 second or ISO 3200 which would have given me 1/80 second. It was so dim that I preferred not to go up much on the ISO or noise would have started creeping in so I took a chance. I shot a burst of images (5 or so) and that was the sharpest of the group.

 

[jrizal]

Im guessing, if i can afford to get a lens with VR it would aid me in the beginning too...

Its just the lens i mentioned in a previous thread, which ill possibly be getting http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...or-55-200mm-f-4-5-6g-telephoto-zoom-lens.html does not have VR...

If I were you I would get the VR version here. Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR DX AF-S ED Zoom-Nikkor Lens - Factory Refurbished includes Full 1 Year Warranty Brand new is $249. Or if you can spare the extra cash go for this instead Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR DX AF-S ED Zoom-Nikkor Lens - Factory Refurbished includes Full 1 Year Warranty. And if you want a cheap 70-300mm without VR then this is your choice. Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Lens w/Hood (Black) - Gray Market 1928 G

But Rhoads and Nmoody earlier mentioned and implied it's nice to have but not necessarily a requirement - emphasis on the nice to have. And if you can get a lens with VR at a reasonable price like in the links I've shown, then go for it. And for whatever reason you don't want VR, there is always the off switch BTW. There is no more need for me to discuss the pros and cons of VR here. But regardless of your preference, shooting without VR is a very nice way to practice your grip on your camera.

 

[unpopular]

Yea. Before image stabilization I thought I was a badass because I could hold the camera steady to 1/20 with a 50mm lens.

 

[KmH]

This might be helpful - Nikon VR explained

 

[invisible]

Which leads me to...

It all depends on what you shoot. For example, if you shoot bands in pubs (i.e., very challenging conditions – low light, moving subjects) then by all means VR makes a huge difference.

Wrong... VR just lets you get a steady shot with a lower shutter.. It won't help at all if your subject is moving around.

I believe I didn't express myself correctly. Let's say you're shooting a band at 200mm at f/2.8 and at your camera's highest tolerable ISO. Let's also say that low-light conditions force you to shoot at 1/80 (which, depending on the band or the song, could be enough to freeze the action)... VR will definitely play a part in saving the day, especially if you don't have a steady pulse. Even shooting at 1/100 or 1/120, at 200mm VR will make a huge difference.