Any downside to VR?

[Old Walt]

VR is a drain on the batteries. Just compare using a VR lens with VR on all the time to using a classic MF lens...:wink:

 

[redbaronace]

I just use the VR all the time and carry an extra battery if need be. Now the thought of VR lenses breaking down or requiring maintenance on the VR system is troubling. That being said, if VR was available on my 50mm 1.4 prime, I would use it. You could always turn it off.

 

[Julien]

That being said, if VR was available on my 50mm 1.4 prime, I would use it. You could always turn it off.

I'm really trying to understand here why you would need VR on such a lens ? A lens like that is easily handholdable to at least 1/30th without too much technique. Unsteady hands, sure but still.

 

[Joves]

Well I use it at times but, never use it in Mode2 on my 80-400 I use mode1 which is as the photo is taken. I never use it when at 1/500 or above either. At those shutter speeds even at 400 good holding technique is all that counts. I think VR is for those without good long lens technique, my cousin is a prime example. I had to show him how to use it without the VR, good technique will get you more keepers than VR will.

 

[joeholmes]

A lens like that is easily handholdable to at least 1/30th without too much technique.

What if you want to shoot at 1/15, 1/10, or 1/8?

No matter how slow a shutter speed you can shoot at now, why not be able to shoot at three stops slower?

That said, I agree, there wouldn't be much call for VR in a 50mm, and it would make the lens quite a bit larger.

VR is a drain on the batteries.

True -- I've found my batteries drain about 10% faster when I've got a VR lens on the body.

-=-Joe

 

[tfboy]

Having the 70-200, it's surprising how often I do use VR for those slow shutter speeds where it does help, even if you have minimal handshake.

When I was with Yu last summer, I took some shots on D300 + 1.4TC + 600mm VR at 1/60 and they're pretty darn sharp, even though I just had a monopod and no real technique.

So VR can blow the shutter speed = inverse focal length rule as far as I'm concerned :biggrin:

No disadvantages. Yes, there's the cost, weight, etc, so you have to decide whether you want the saving in weight and potential saving in cost should the lens ever fail. I know I have a lot more keepers with the VR on the 70-200, to such a point that my sale rate is higher so it has paid for a more expensive repair than the non VR version :smile:

 

[Carole]

I have the 70-300 ED lens and the 70-300VR. The VR version is twice as heavy as the ED. Since I mostly use it to photograph whales, I'm using it at 300 all the time so once the focus is set, it stays the same. But at this point, I'm yearning for a 300mm fixed lens.

Carole

 

[Uncle Greg]

What if you want to shoot at 1/15, 1/10, or 1/8?

No matter how slow a shutter speed you can shoot at now, why not be able to shoot at three stops slower?

Or what if you'd like some f/8 depth of field but your lowest handheld shutter speed is forcing you to be wide open?

Or what if you'd like to shoot at 200 ISO instead of 1600?

I'd take VR on even the widest of lenses if I could have it.

 

[joeholmes]

Or what if you'd like some f/8 depth of field but your lowest handheld shutter speed is forcing you to be wide open?

Or what if you'd like to shoot at 200 ISO instead of 1600?

Exactly.

-=-Joe

 

[Julien]

Or what if you'd like some f/8 depth of field but your lowest handheld shutter speed is forcing you to be wide open?

f/8 what's that ? :tongue:

 

[trenchmonkey]

Battery drain??? separate AF from the shutter button. VR will only engage on a 1/2 depress
just prior to your shot. I can shoot all day on one battery D3/D700 & D300 gripped so
that's a non issue for me. Love VR, wouldn't buy a new lens >135mm w/o it. YMMV. :biggrin:

 

[redbaronace]

Or what if you'd like some f/8 depth of field but your lowest handheld shutter speed is forcing you to be wide open?

Or what if you'd like to shoot at 200 ISO instead of 1600?

I'd take VR on even the widest of lenses if I could have it.

Indeed, this is what im talking about.

 

[davidnholtjr]

Or what if you'd like some f/8 depth of field but your lowest handheld shutter speed is forcing you to be wide open?

Or what if you'd like to shoot at 200 ISO instead of 1600?

I'd take VR on even the widest of lenses if I could have it.

Does anyone use a thing called a tripod anymore? Or has everyone become to rely on VR to much.

 

[MMRadman]

Does anyone use a thing called a tripod anymore? Or has everyone become to lazy and rely on VR to much.

Coming closer to ugly truth.

I think it was KR (must use his name in vain) who stated tripod is dead, long live VR.

 

[trenchmonkey]

Does anyone use a thing called a tripod anymore? Or has everyone become to rely on VR to much.

I think landscape shooters use 'em

 

[bigshot]

Try taking a tripod out for street shooting! You'll get mowed down. As for battery use, a spare battery or two is a LOT easier to haul around than a tripod.

 

[Thorsten]

Look at how many MF lenses from the 70s are still in use today. I wonder how many (if any) of this years AFS VR lenses will still work in 2050. But then again, we may not care.

 

[Julien]

Does anyone use a thing called a tripod anymore? Or has everyone become to rely on VR to much.

I've never used a tripod yet don't have VR and I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I don't think that many photographers really need a tripod in the first place.

 

[xenonsupra]

FX sensor > VR lenses

having both isn't bad though.

 

[Pa]

I've never used a tripod yet don't have VR and I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one. I don't think that many photographers really need a tripod in the first place.

Julien, I have looked at your web page and your photos are excellent. But they are not the sort of photography that requires a tripod. In fact, a tripod would be an impediment for you.

But try taking a high-quality photograph of a wildflower in a dark forest without a tripod or VR. I think you would wish you had one or both.