VR or no VR!

gphotography

gphotography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
95
Name
G
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking at changing my rather aging Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for a Nikon 80 or 70-200 f2.8. I have managed with no VR and got some good results but was thinking VR might be of help in some situations especially in low light. I was shooting a festival a couple of weeks back and along side me was one of the top music photographers in the country. I glanced at his lens and he had the VR turned off! I have heard that many photographers turn the VR off. So should I buy a secondhand 80-200 with no VR at half the price of the 70-200 or go for the VR option. Any thoughts?
 
Dont see why you would turn it off when handholding,unless you are trying to look "cool" or preserve battery life.

I wouldnt see the point in changing the sigma for the 80-200. The 80-200 is great, but the sigma is no slouch (mine certainly isnt anwyay).
The 70-200 I had never blew me away, but that might have been lack of my skill at the time I owned it.

If you have no intention of using the VR, then no point dropping a grand on that lens.

What about the Sigma 70-200 OS as another option.
 
VR/IS or VC are only good in low light for static subjects, but they are good at avoiding camera shake as long as you still choose the correct shutter speed for your subject.

I shoot birds, I still need a 1/400th shutter speed whether the VC on my lens is on or off as the subject though it can look static sitting on a branch is not static, its constantly twitching or moving.
The VC does help me though by removing camera shake completely and for these shaky hands its a god send, shot where I would have relied on a tripod can now be hand held and with the VC on the tamron lens I can shoot static objects at as slow a speed as 1/13th of a second handheld without issue, it will even allow 50% crops without showing an degradation.

I would add that trying my brothers lenses the Nikkors are razor sharp, even the 80-200mm
 
Last edited:
i own a nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR I and i find it very difficult to keep it still especially if i have my teleconverter on which is about half the weight of the 70-200 so it gets rather heavy after a while and the 70-200 is a fantastic lens anyway, so sharp and quick.
 
Depends what you're shooting, but the VR makes a huge difference if your shutter speeds are such that you wouldn't get a sharp shot without it. Perhaps that's stating the obvious, but it really does make shots possible where they would be impossible on the 80-200 or the like. And it doesn't have to be static subjects either, for example at 200mm you'd be wanting 1/250th shutter speed to beat camera shake, that's on FX but on a cropper it would be 1.5 times faster still. The VR means you can drop to a much lower shutter speed while still freezing typical human motion.
 
I would use it for shooting live bands mainly or maybe a little bit of sport. I have had my Sigma for many years & yes it's sharp but has had to go back to them for repair on two occassions & it's focusing past the subject at the moment so needs to go back again. Yes I could get the 70-200 with VR & knock it off for those times where I don't need it & use it as & when I do but if as mentioned it falls down on moving subjects then maybe the non VR 80-200 would be better.
 
i would totally disagree with the 70-200 not being good for moving objects, my friend took it to a local football match and the shots he produced were excellent.
 
I have the VR-1 one,really nice lens,and yes i do find the VR usefull somtimes,not a great fan of the sigma one,having had touble with one in the pass,the coating on the inside had started to go,a £200 repair bill :(

:)
 
I'm guessing if you're shooting bands then the majority of your shots need a fairly high shutter speed to freeze motion - unless you're after a specific effect. If thats the case, ask yourself, will you actually use the VR as you'll be above its useful shutter speed range.

I'm guessing the photograper you saw had his VR turned off as that may have speeded up his AF.

Simply put, if you will shoot stationary subjects at low shutter speeds get the VR. Otherwise get one of the later 80-200 models.

Mike
 
There is a nice Sigma OS in the classifieds :)

I've also moved from a non OS Sigma to the Nikon VR and my keep rate has gone up considerably.. It is a fantastic lens.
 
I seem to be heading towards an used Nikkor 70-200 VR mk1. I have seen a few about in very good condition for about £1100. I would use the VR at weddings but as I've said shooting bands I may well knock it off. It's there if I need it. Thanks guys for the advice.

G.
 
gphotography said:
I seem to be heading towards an used Nikkor 70-200 VR mk1. I have seen a few about in very good condition for about £1100. I would use the VR at weddings but as I've said shooting bands I may well knock it off. It's there if I need it. Thanks guys for the advice.

G.
Click to expand...

Going rate is more like £950 for these.
 
cambsno said:
Going rate is more like £950 for these.
Click to expand...

I have always seen 70-200 VR I above 1100
 
I've got the VR1. I have the VR turned off. It is activated via the shutter button, I use back button focus and I'm convinced it can't engage and be of any use in time.
I'm sure that the official Nikon line is that it will. However for me, shooting Horses and Dogs I don't need it.

Absolutely cracking lens though. And plenty sharp enough wide open.
 
Can't speak for the 70-200 vrI but I've got the Nikon 80-200 af-s and it's a fantastic lens, especially for the money. Weighs a ton though but I prefer that. I've heard the vrI system isn't great compared to the vrII system, but it's best to look into that yourself as I don't know first hand.
 
Forget the issue about whether or not you want VR - we aren't Canon users, we don't get the choice!

The Nikkor 70-200's (VR1 and VR2) are absolutely stunning pieces of glass, very little else comes close.

Buy one of those and just enjoy it, you can work out if VR works for you when you have it.

My opinion, it is a waste of time, but nothing I could say or show you will convince you or anyone else reading this thread, so you'll just have to take my word on it... or not.
 
Considering I manage useable shots at 1/15 @ 200mm I would say the VR1 works just fine and is useful to have in your arsenal when the shot requires it.

But yes secondhand going rate for a mint boxed complete one is between 900-950. £1100 seems very expensive, heck if I didn't like mine so much I would offer it to you for that kind of money.
 
Cant comment on the others but i have the old 80-200 2.8 push/pull lens.
I think its great, pin sharp and if england ever got invaded i can use it as a tank cannon.
 
I've had another look & seen a few for £900 or so. I think I'll go for the Mk1 VR and as stated it's an option that I may or may not use. Thanks guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top