VR Lens question.

TheUndisputed · Jan 29, 2009

I was searching the local classifieds for good camera deals, I found a potential. I just don't know how well the part will be for my need.

Of course you can see, right now I own the D60 with the 18-55mm AF-S DX VR f/3.5-5.6. Alright, I can't tell a damn bit of difference between when the Vibration Resistance is turned on, and when it is turned off. Now, for the question. I found a 55-200mm AF-S DX f/4-5.6 ED lens for $96 in GREAT SHAPE. Comes in box, with soft case, front and rear covers. Someone told me that at about 135mm, the VR comes into play and is a luxury at that focal length and higher. Is it really that needed, or can you tell a difference at all?

Would it be worth me forking out the $100 to get the lens? Or do I need to wait to find a VR lens?

Dao · Jan 29, 2009

It depends on the situation. If you are taking a picture in a place where there are plenty of light and you can use a faster shutter speed, you may not need the VR.

Or in a situation that a tripod is used, then you do not need VR.

Dubious Drewski · Jan 29, 2009

Yes, it depends on the situation. But more specifically, it depends on the shutter speed at which you are shooting. If there's only enough light to be able to shoot at 1/60th of a second or worse, then VR will make a very large difference. If it's broad daylight and you can use 1/4000th, the the effect VR has will be completely neglegible.

As a general rule, the average person can handhold a shutter speed equal to the focal length of the lens. Shooting at 135mm? You should be able to get a usable shot if you use a shutter speed of 1/125 and are careful enough.

But with VR, you can handhold a shot around 2 to 3 stops slower. For instance, with VR completely spun up and active, you might be able to get a good shot at 135mm and 1/60th of a second.

ANDS! · Jan 30, 2009

I am willing to bet that that is NOT the VR version of that lens. Unless I am reading you wrong in that you are deciding between the VR and non-VR version of the 55-200MM lens.

fiveoboy01 · Jan 30, 2009

I'm pretty sure the latter is true in this instance.

TheUndisputed · Jan 30, 2009

ANDS! said:
I am willing to bet that that is NOT the VR version of that lens. Unless I am reading you wrong in that you are deciding between the VR and non-VR version of the 55-200MM lens.

Well, sort of. I don't actually have a 55-200mm AF-S VR available right now, but there is a non VR version of the lens that the guy only wants $96 for, and it's basically brand new. Should I just jump on this deal, or is the VR really worth the extra money in waiting until I can come across one?

Basically, is it going to be worth taking the $96 lens and just not worrying about the vibration resistance, or will I spend the $96, and regret that I didn't just wait to get a VR lens?

Bigpopa · Jan 30, 2009

I have this very lens and so far I havent had any problems with it but I have seen a couple of shots that were ify. I still like it though.

DavidElliot · Jan 30, 2009

i own the 55-200 (non VR) and i gotta admit that it does not get a lot of usage. i've found that it's simply not fast enough for me in situations where light is in shortage. plus the lack of VR makes hand holding very difficult. i've gotten some sharp images off of it during broad daylight at around 135mm, but images beyond that focal length tend to have blur. i really wish i had the 55-200 VR or the 18-200 VR

Village Idiot · Jan 30, 2009

VR is also not as effective at smaller focal lengths.

Say you were using a D700 or simplifying this, the general rule is that for an image without blur due to camera shake, you should shoot at a speed no less than the current focal length. So if you're using the 18-55, you could essentially get a good shot with a shutter speed of 1/20+. If you're using a 300mm f/2.8 telephoto prime, you'd be pressed to get a hand held shot under 1/300 without any stabilization.

Now, take into account the APS-C sensor in your camera. Since it changes the effective field of view by "magnifying" (it's just cropping, not really magnifying) the focal length by 1.5 times, you have to add that into the equation. 18mm becomes a FOV of 27mm meaning you should use a shutter speed faster than 1/27. Since your camera doesn't have 1/27, you'd use the next faster shutter speed.

Chances are, with the 18-55, you're not using shutter speed of 1/5-1/20 too often. If you were using a longer lens, say a 70-200, then it may come in handy. I took a photo at 70mm with a shutter speed of 1/15 with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS (IS = Nikon's VR) and there was only a small bit of blur from camera shake. That was on a camera with a 1.6x crop APS-C sensor.

Also keep in mind that VR does not stop motion. If you're shooting with a 70-200 VR lens at 70mm with a shutter speed of 1/50 and getting sharp photos, you're still going to have problems getting sharp photos of moving objects unless you're using a strobe or some other device that creates a faster exposure within the original slower one.

Katier · Jan 30, 2009

I asked about SR on my new pentax because I never felt the need for it and the point that was highlighted is that it allows, as stated earlier, slower shutter speeds.

In my case I can hand hold to around 1/30th with care on a 18-55 lens.. slower than that I'll be doing night work and have a tripod or be looking for 'natural' tripods. BUT I also sometimes use long lenses ( 70-300 ) and at the upper reaches of this it was pointed out it would be easier to use say 125th or 60th of a second.

TheUndisputed · Jan 31, 2009

So, let me get this straight, as long as I use a shutter speed that is as fast as the length of the lens, I shouldn't have a problem whether the lense is VR or not?

Village Idiot · Jan 31, 2009

TheUndisputed said:
So, let me get this straight, as long as I use a shutter speed that is as fast as the length of the lens, I shouldn't have a problem whether the lense is VR or not?

Yes.

But if you're shooting with a variable aperture lens with a pretty narrow apertures and a longer focal length, then VR will be more useful than something like an 80-200 f/2.8

Defy · Jan 31, 2009

I have the 55-200mm VR and i only use it when i am out side in lots!!!! of light. It's a good cheap lens for well lit situations but other wise it's not fast enough.

On the flip side it is cheap. I would not buy the no VR for 100 because i only paid a 100 for my VR lens. i see them all the time on Craigslist for 150. As a matter of fact as soon as i raise some dough to get the 18-200mm VR lens i will selling mine....