Is VR/IS a fad?

[nickzou]

I was reading an interesting article on VR here:Who Needs VR? - My Precious - JPG Magazine

Here's the part that I found particularly interesting:

Third, VR lenses offer no advantage in terms of speed over a prime lens. Do the math. Most of the VR lenses marketed for Nikon cameras have variable maximum aperatures of f/4 to 5.6. If the VR technology gives two stops of additional hand-holdability, then the VR zoom now has an equivalent of f/2 to 2.8. Every prime lens in my bag has a maximum aperature of f/2.8 or better.

What do you guys think of VR/IS? Since I sold my D80 to fund my D7000, I had to sell the Sigma 18-50mm zoom lens on it. So I have no general purpose lens at the moment. I mean I have a 50mm f/1.4, which is great but I find in general I need something wider.

So I was thinking of buying the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 OR the Sigma 18-50mm OS f/2.8-4.5. I was impressed by the aperture of the Sigma and that it had OS, but then I came across the article. It sounds a bit bias but it does raise good points. I'd like to get some other opinions on VR/IS though. Also, the Sigma in this case is more expensive.

 

[ann]

I have several , in fact one is on my 70-200 2.8 which i use often. It is because as I have gotten older and cameras seem to be heavier these days it provides for me, better stability. Is this in fact necessary, don't know, but it gives me peace of mind (or call it my security blanket).

 

[molested_cow]

Price advantage.

F2.8 70~300mm non-VR is still a lot more expensive than a F4.5~5.6 70~300mm VR lens.

To me VR is important in telephoto and handheld macro situations. Otherwise I don't see a need for VR using say 50mm or less.

 

[jake337]

Price advantage.

F2.8 70~300mm non-VR is still a lot more expensive than a F4.5~5.6 70~300mm VR lens.

To me VR is important in telephoto and handheld macro situations. Otherwise I don't see a need for VR using say 50mm or less.

Do you mean hand-held macro situations when no flash is involved?

 

[molested_cow]

All depends on the shutter speed.

 

[Overread]

I view IS/OS/VR as not so much an enabler, but as an extender and a support. It's not critical to photography, not even to good photography and its also very new invention on the field. It isn't completly the wonder tool that marketing can make one feel it might possibly be and that can lead to some first over estimating and then underestimating its importance.

In the end its something that lets you go that little bit further in dimmer light or hold that heavier, longer lens that little bit more steadily. Sometimes its going to save you a shutter speed or two - othertimes its going to be giving you a smoother viewfinder image. I think it is a tool that comes into its own a lot more on longer telephoto lenses rather than on shorter and wide angle lenses.


So is it essential - nopes not at all, but it is a help and it is something that I consider worth paying for.

 

[flea77]

If you look at every time you trip the shutter, subtract the times you were on a tripod or monopod, subtract the times you used flash, subtract the times you were outside in broad daylight, then subtract the times you were over 1/500 sec, what is left are the times OS/VR/IS could have potentially helped you. The question is, is that enough times to make it worth it?

Allan

 

[jake337]

If you look at every time you trip the shutter, subtract the times you were on a tripod or monopod, subtract the times you used flash, subtract the times you were outside in broad daylight, then subtract the times you were over 1/500 sec, what is left are the times OS/VR/IS could have potentially helped you. The question is, is that enough times to make it worth it?

Allan

So it would be a great tool for a wedding photography who primarily chooses fast zooms and no flash.

 

[sleist]

Depends on the lens.

I don't miss it on my 17-55 f/2.8
I have it on my 70-200 f/2.8 and only use it 50% of the time (mostly on the long end)
I have it on my 70-300 and am glad I do. The lens would suck without it.
I don't have it on my Sigma 150mm macro and only miss if I'm using it as a telephoto. Not needed for macro.
The 18-105 would be a piece of crap without it - ditto for most consumer/kit zooms with variable aperture.
Any prime over 85-90mm is enhanced with VR - more so at longer focal lengths.

 

[flea77]

So it would be a great tool for a wedding photography who primarily chooses fast zooms and no flash.

That depends on what shutter speed you typically use. I am shooting a wedding today with one fast zoom and several fast primes, no flash, and no IS/VR/OS on any of them.

Allan

 

[Tony S]

I find it very usefull for wildlife photography where you are shooting in low light and often times unable to set up on a tripod because I got too close to the critter. Being able to handhold at 1/60 second at 200mm is really nice to have when you find that bull elk bedded down. It is also nice to be able to handhold a monster heavy lens like the 400 2.8 IS and get crisp shots well under 1/400 for things that pop up unexpectedly.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I generally try to time my shoots when I will have adequate light or artificial light to make shutter speed not a major factor. For wedding photography/receptions, I would say VR is a gimmick and fast lenses and flash are king. For portraits, I would say the same thing.

The only time I have ever been glad I have had VR was with birds in flight. It doesn't slow the birds down, but it certainly helps me track them in the view finder and keep the composition and framing that I want. I don't do much sports or wildlife that is that fast, but I am sure it helps in those circumstances, also.

For me, and the types of shooting I do, I would much rather have a fast lens and a good flash than a lens with VR, but it's always nice to have all three. Honestly, if the shooting conditions will support it, I will shoot from a tripod before I will depend on VR...I have some great shots with the 70-300 VRII with VR turned off at an efl of 420mm at 1/15th of a second at an ISO of 2200 that just wouldn't have been possible without a tripod.

It all depends on the shooting conditions. As far as if it is a fad or not, I would say no. It will continue to get better at what it does, but it will never be able to overcome motion blur from the subject, and that is about the limitations that we are now up against.

 

[Josh66]

If it's a fad, it has been going on for about 15 years... (Is it still a fad after that long?)

Canon's first IS lens was in 1995.

 

[enzodm]

I mean I have a 50mm f/1.4, which is great but I find in general I need something wider.

If you need something wider than 50, do not worry much about VR. The usual rule of thumb tells you need 1/focal length seconds for a steady handheld shot, so the problem may arise mainly with tele lenses, where you neeed really fast shutter speed.
The cited sentence starts from a couple of false points.
First, VR is a technology that can be and is applied to every kind of lens, including primes (contrary to what the Author tells in the article). Second, in fact, no one tells VR offers a speed advantage over a prime lens. It simply helps to overcome a limitation of slow zooms.
However, if taken literally, the natural consequence is: instead of a zoom+VR, buy 3-4-5 prime lenses (disregarding any economical consideration). Half people here would agree on that choice, but not for VR considerations, simply for lens quality (primes vs. cheap zooms), which is also the point of the whole article.
By the way the article is a little bit confused, since the title has not much to do with the content: there is no comparison between plain zoom and zoom+VR, or plain prime vs. prime+VR. So, the correct title would be "Who needs zooms?".

 

[Derrel]

It's a valuable feature, and a significant advance in lens design. The author quoted mentioning maximum lens aperture values of f/2.8 as some sort of evidence against the need for VR seems to miss the obvious point staring him right in the face,and that is that VR is useful with lenses with slow maximum apertures, because those lenses force the user into slow shutter speed territory a lot of the time. With say the 70-300 f/4.5~5.6, the lens is ALWAYS a slow lens, and so VR is useful for the times when the user wants to stop down to f/8 or f/11 for deep depth of field in dimmer light, and still shoot hand-held. For scenic and walkabout uses, VR is very helpful,and the more-modern systems can allow the user to shoot as slow as four full stops slower than they would be able to shoot at with a non-VR lens. FOUR full speeds slower is to me, a very valuable benefit.