To VR or not to VR (Nikon users)

F-Stop

F-Stop

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,124
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Just how big is the difference between the 200mm 2.8 VR and the non-VR models? I'm wanting to get a new lens soon, but don't quite have the money for the VR version.

I figure the non-VR model would be a tremendous upgrade over my kit 18-135, but is it worth it? Or should I save my money for the VR version?
 
I assume you are talking about the 70-200 f2.8G IF ED VR AF-S? If so, it is an awsome lens. IQ is up there with the best. However price is also up there.

Personally I would really like one of these lenses as well, instead of the Bigma that I currently own. However your question is about VR or not VR. In truth, I have managed without it untill this day, and probably will for a long time yet. If you can bare the loud, yet relatively fast focusing of the 80-200 F2.8 AF Nikkor, then go for that. The IQ is comparable if not better than the 70-200 f2.8G VR, and doesn't cost close to £1k... Infact its around half that. Oh, and lastly, doesn't weigh in at 1.3KG either! Considerably less, circa 500-600g iirc?

So to answer your question by way of my opinion, I'd say If you have the cash, go for it. If it's not essential, save your cash and get more stuff :D

EDIT:

I just got a horrible awakening, in that you may have been talking about a 200mm prime, and I have just rambled on for ages about completely the wrong lens! Either way, I suppose my point about the need for VR stands :)
 
Woodsy, you were spot on. I was referring to the 70-200 2.8 VR and the 80-200 2.8 non-VR.

Thanks for the opinion. :) I think I'll probably get the non-VR version and get a new nifty-fifty as well. I've worn mine nearly complete out. lol
 
I use the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D n. It hasnt got VR and I have been taking perfectly good shots with it. Save your £££'s. You can pick them up for less than £500 and achieve comparable image quality and build. The only downside to it is that it doesnt have an AF-S motor. The focusing is noisy but on my D200's it performs flawlessly (I use it for aviation work).

Hope this helps.

King.
 
I've just upgraded from a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. Unfortunately it its not being delivered untill tomorrow so I will come back and comment then!!!
 
I have the VR version and yes it's ace, but only a benefit in lower light where the subject doesn't move much so YOU are the main cause of blur. The VR reduces camera blur caused by you wobbling about, so the best example would be shooting a landscape at 200mm and 1/50 sec, on the non-VR lens you are likely to blur the image by moving, whereas the VR lens' image will be fine

If you're shooting a footie match, they are moving most so the VR has relatively little effect

If the pennies are available, I'd get the VR (in fact I did!) but I wouldn't hit a credit card for the difference

HTH

DD
 
Depends how much you have to spend - and what kind of shots you'll be taking with it. I have the 80-200mm AF-D - i.e. no VR and haven't missed it - it's a great lens - one of Nikons sharpest and fairly fast focussing too. Half the price of the 70-200mm VR - so that's food for thought!
 
it depends where you think you will use it - if you want it for wild life [its quieter] or lower light conditions, then VR is the way to go, and is the reason I am saving up for the VR version of that lens. Otherwise, the 80-200 is a very capable lens for considerably less money. ON Sunday on Camden, my friend brought along his newly purchases 18-200 vr, and raved about it by the evening, as he could use its vr capabilities to the max.
Horses for courses mate - I know I would use the VR functionality with what I do, other people wouldn't, and the last time I played with the 80-200, it focused very quickly and produced lovely crisp images. :thumbs:

edit: quick question for others though: is it the 80-200 that loses AF if you stick a TC on it?
 
you can't use the Nikon TC on the 80-200mm AF-D - although you may be able to use a Kenko TC - no idea why.
 
Steveo_Hants said:
I've just upgraded from a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. Unfortunately it its not being delivered untill tomorrow so I will come back and comment then!!!
Click to expand...

I went this route as well, you won't be disappointed.

My personal feeling is that the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a better lens than the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 anyway. I couldn't fault the Sigma at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top