VR When?

[curtd]

I'm not sure about the need for VR. I understand why it is desirable as a feature, so I'm curious about how it stacks up optically. I am also wondering if it is any factor when using a tripod.

Thanks for any thoughts you have!

Peace, Curt

[David_Buzzard]

The VR is great when you need to hand hold in dark conditions that you normally wouldn't be able to. I can get a sharp 1/30th sec. or slower sometimes, out of my 70-200. The downside is that it costs you optically. If you're shooting at 1/30th, then it's still a big improvement over what you would get without, but at 1/250th, you really want to have the VR turned off. The same for tripods, if you don't need the VR don't use it. The other thing to keep in mind is that it only works on camera movement, not subject movement. If you're shooting a football game at night, it's not going to do you much good.

David Buzzard's Technical Blog

[curtd]

Right, thanks David. I try to use a tripod wherever possible, and most of my work is conducive to that. I did use a 24-120 Nikon VR lens last year shooting out of a helicopter and it seemed to work well.
So the next question becomes whether or not the VR version of a lens configuration is inherently sharper than the non VR. In other words, is my VR on a tripod, with VR turned off, as sharp or sharper than the non-VR?

Peace, Curt

[David_Buzzard]

Well, my 70-200 without the VR turned on it about the same (at least I can't tell the difference) as my old 80-200D lens. The newer designs tend to be a bit sharper, as they refine the design as they go. My Mom has one of the original 28-200mm lenses, and it's not that sharp at all (at least in my eyes, she likes it a lot), where as the newer 28-200 VR is supposed to be very sharp. This probably more apparent in the 'prosumer' lens than in the F2.8 pro lenses.

David Buzzard's Technical Blog