VRII on future current lenses...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Scott Sherman, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. I know, I am spending way too much time on these forums... but I was wondering if Nikon might or could upgrade future releases of VR lenses currently being offered with VR1 to VRII. It would probably not be much of a problem to do, except that they might really upset a bunch of current owners of the VR1 edition of the lenses.

    On the other hand, it could stimulate a new surge in VRII lens sales. I had decided to pass on the 200-400 but if they offered this same lens with a VRII which appears to give another whole stop for handheld shooting over VR1, I just might reconsider.

    Based on the price of the 18-200, it is probably no more expensive to put into lenses than VR1. Lastly, I wonder what it would take to return a VR1 lens for an upgrade if I as a consumer wanted to have that done at my expense.

    Just wondering, what are your thoughts?
     
  2. I wonder if it would be possible to retro-fit VRII back into a VR lens and what Nikon might charge for such a thing if it were possible. (I have a 70-200 and could always use another virtual stop of light! :biggrin: ).
     
  3. That will NEVER happen.

    JohnG
     
  4. Instead of worrying about a new lens giving another stop, I think this will be easier to accomplish with the cameras giving extra ISO without noise. They seem to be addressing this issue better in the newer releases. ISO1600 with no noise gives you plenty of room to work with.
     
  5. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Interestingly, the D200 has one stop less iso than the D100.
     
  6. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    I'm lazy. Can you give me a capsulation of what makes VRII better than plain old VR?
     
  7. Chris - It's better cause it has got a "II" after the VR.:smile:

    Really, I would like to know what is different and why it is better too!
     
  8. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  9. Does anyone here think that with the new VRII coming out (I assume more will follow later) do you think that the big zooms might come down on price?
     
  10. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    I'm with Paul here. VR is overrated as a general photographic tool. It cannot stop subject motion, to this end you need faster shutter speeds which only a bigger aperture can provide. So having VR on a 200/2 is perfectly sensible, because you can open it up to f/2 to get shorter shutter speeds and add VR to help you get sharp images if you prefer hand-holding the lens. In fact, the nice thing about the 200/2 VR is its weight combined with its stubbiness, which allows you to hold it much better at lower speeds.

    For long periods of the year, Norway is a dark country resulting in sombre people and 1/250 sec is something encountered only in sunshine in summer (or on snow, in winter), so typical shooting speeds are around 1/30 to 1/60 and early morning and late afternoon this rather be 1/8 - 1/15 instead. Now in the half-light of winter time, before snow covers the terrain, speeds drop even lower than that and you might need 1600 "ISO" to get as "fast" as 1/30 sec, even at noon! No wonder we have learned and refined tripod shooting techniques. With a decent tripod and a lens with decent tripod mount, there are no "unsafe" speeds at all and accordingly, no "critical" range of speeds either. Good tripods don't come cheap but as Norway is an expensive country, we indulge the asking price..
     
  11. Jarrell

    Jarrell

    Feb 13, 2005
    Macon, Ga.
    "For long periods of the year, Norway is a dark country resulting in sombre people and 1/250 sec is something encountered only in sunshine in summer (or on snow, in winter), so typical shooting speeds are around 1/30 to 1/60 and early morning and late afternoon this rather be 1/8 - 1/15 instead. Now in the half-light of winter time, before snow covers the terrain, speeds drop even lower than that and you might need 1600 "ISO" to get as "fast" as 1/30 sec, even at noon!"


    That's interesting, I had never thought about that. Living in an area of the world that is totally different will do that to you.. :smile:
    Jarrell
     
  12. All good stuff and agree about fast lenses but, still I would like to know/understand why VRII is better and/or different from VR. Like what did they do to make it better/faster etc? Just curious.........
     
  13. Add me to the Monty Dog and nfoto band-wagon, please :wink:

    Living in Washington State and doing as much night-time sports shooting as well as winter birding that I have been doing, much of this is done, obviously, in "non-optimal light" conditions. We don't have winters as bad as Bjorn describes, but not only do we have many "gray-days", they are quite short from now through February.

    VR may have great utility for some, but it is most certainly not a panacea for all, at least not until I can convince "moving objects" to wait a bit in mid-stride or flight :wink:

    I find it interesting that Paul, Bjorn and I all live in places where "blue-bird-skies" are a treat, and not the norm, especially during the winter months. To me, the ideal is fast glass and cleaner High-ISO coupled with good noise reduciton software and techniques. The latter 2 are getting better with each generation.

    I would also like to agree with Bjorn re: tripod technique. I certainly don't consider mine "great" but it is getting better, and you can certainly see what a difference this can make.
     
  14. I find it interesting that Paul sort of poo-poos the VR, but he's got probably the best incarnation of it, in his 300 f/2.8 VR! :eek: :tongue::rolleyes:

    Joking aside, I do agree with Paul, Bjorn, and Bill, to an extent. But it also depends on the subject and whether or not you can afford to bring a tripod along. I have 2 VR lenses so far: the 70-200 and the much maligned 24-120. The 70-200 allows for crisp images at 1/60, which my feeble hand-holding couldn't achieve on its own. It's not much different than using 1/60 with a 50mm lens for a head/shoulder (improvised, unposed) portrait, in natural light, but now I can do it at 200mm and the associated selective focus and compressed perspective.

    The 24-120, and I suspect the 18-200, is different. There, the goal is a single walk-around lens (which also means no tripod) and the 24-120 achieves that goal fairly well, for me (I think I have a good copy). Yes, VR does not slow down the subject, but it helps capturing static scenes with lower noise, no tripod, in natural light. The 18-200 could do this even better (and on a wider range of focal length), and I am probably going to swap the 24-120 for it at some point... :eek: :redface: :smile::biggrin:
     
  15. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  16. Well, I'm going to go against the flow here. I really do love the VR on my 70-200. All depends how you shoot. I shoot 99% of my warm weather shots from a kayak, slight wave or wind action really took it's toll until I got the VR. Yes, it doesn't stop the subject from moving, but it certainly compensates for the kayak moving. Some of those birdies are in dark spots, dark backgrounds with summer foliage, so the VR gives me that added edge.
    There are some shooters who suffer with shaky hands - the VR helps them, I'm sure.
    If I only shot on dry land, I'm not sure I'd bother with VR but for my purposes, LOVE it and need it!
     
  17. With respect to Paul and others, I love VR and I assume I will love VRII twice as much if for no other reason than it has a II in it. I think most lenses perform better at the mid range of f stops f8 to f11 which is where most VR lenses seem most at home. If you can shoot at f8 handheld in circumstances which would normally require f2.8, you can carry a much lighter lens, which I think most would agree is a plus if you are on an all day walk about touring foreign lands. Additionally, if you can reduce the need for a tripod to get usable or better shots, I think this is a plus. Obviously, VRII will never replace fast lenses for obvious reasons. The biggest differences I am aware of between VRI and II is that the VRII is a bit more intelligent in that you no longer have to shut it off when used on a tripod or monopod, it somehow just knows and compensates automatically and of course the extra stop of speed if you believe Nikon. Obviously this is still a bird in the bush as they say until we get our hands on them. I must say, I like the direction that Nikon is going. FF would be nice for a number of reasons, but I don't see it in the near or forseeable future. In it's absence, I am glad that we have the excellent lenses being provided for DX format such as the 18-200. I can see carrying just the 18-200 and the 12-24 lenses for a travel walk about kit.

    my $.02
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
The future of photography and Unsplash General Discussion Aug 5, 2017
Competition Win - 300 f2.8 VRII delivers! General Discussion Sep 8, 2012
How do you store your 70-200 VRII out in the field General Discussion Apr 17, 2012
D800 or 70-200 VRII????? General Discussion Feb 20, 2012