VR . . . does it affect the final image ?

[Sutton Warrior]

Now here is one to get your head round?

 

Vibration redution on lenses, in my case Nikons 'VR' mode. Does it just take the sharp edge off the image when switched on, not enought to worry grandad when taking pictures of active grand children, but what about when one is trying to be creative? I have read this might be the case???

 

SW

[Westie]

Now here is one to get your head round?

 

Vibration redution on lenses, in my case Nikons 'VR' mode. Does it just take the sharp edge off the image when switched on, not enought to worry grandad when taking pictures of active grand children, but what about when one is trying to be creative? I have read this might be the case???

 

SW

 

Hi SW. I'm not certain what you are considering in terms of 'creative' with VR on, but in my humble experience, I don't think VR affects the quality of the image one jot - quite the opposite. I have hundreds of shots taken with my 105mm VR, which have noticeably improved the keeper rate when using handheld. The pictures are sharp, sharp, sharp. It's the best lens in my (limited) arsenal. VR allows me to use a 105 handheld with a shutter speed of 1/30s-1/60s and still get a sharp as a tack shot. The conventional rule of thumb would be that I would need a shutter speed of nearer 1/200s.

 

The only time I have seen any degradation of the image (and that is looking at it 100%, which is never going to affect image quality on an A4 size print) is if I have left VR on when using a tripod. I suppose pros may say that it does have an impact, but when you consider that they are thinking about pictures being blown up to the size of my house, I'm not convinced it should trouble you or I.

 

Even if you were still concerned, you could turn VR off.

 

Some would argue that the money is better spent on a f2.8 lens. With that comes better glass, better contrast and resolution and faster shutter speeds, which overcome the same issues that VR does i.e. camera shake. But strap the camera to a tripod, stop those lenses down to their best range f5-8 and you might be hard pressed to see any tangible difference in a normal sized 10x8 print. If you crop a lot, you may.

 

Having said that, VR is more often put into the consumer range of lenses in Nikon's line up and some prosumer lenses. Ultimately, you get what you pay for.

 

Having read this through, I'm not sure it makes much sense. If you want me to e-mail you some full size pictures taken with VR, more than happy to do so.

 

Andrew.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Westie

[Sutton Warrior]

Hi SW. I'm not certain what you are considering in terms of 'creative' with VR on, but in my humble experience, I don't think VR affects the quality of the image one jot - quite the opposite. I have hundreds of shots taken with my 105mm VR, which have noticeably improved the keeper rate when using handheld. The pictures are sharp, sharp, sharp. It's the best lens in my (limited) arsenal. VR allows me to use a 105 handheld with a shutter speed of 1/30s-1/60s and still get a sharp as a tack shot. The conventional rule of thumb would be that I would need a shutter speed of nearer 1/200s.

 

The only time I have seen any degradation of the image (and that is looking at it 100%, which is never going to affect image quality on an A4 size print) is if I have left VR on when using a tripod. I suppose pros may say that it does have an impact, but when you consider that they are thinking about pictures being blown up to the size of my house, I'm not convinced it should trouble you or I.

 

Even if you were still concerned, you could turn VR off.

 

Some would argue that the money is better spent on a f2.8 lens. With that comes better glass, better contrast and resolution and faster shutter speeds, which overcome the same issues that VR does i.e. camera shake. But strap the camera to a tripod, stop those lenses down to their best range f5-8 and you might be hard pressed to see any tangible difference in a normal sized 10x8 print. If you crop a lot, you may.

 

Having said that, VR is more often put into the consumer range of lenses in Nikon's line up and some prosumer lenses. Ultimately, you get what you pay for.

 

Having read this through, I'm not sure it makes much sense. If you want me to e-mail you some full size pictures taken with VR, more than happy to do so.

 

Andrew.

 

 

Thanks Andrew for taking the trouble to be so detailed. I have a Nikon 18-200VR, I use it as a walk about lense on my D80, all things to all men, master of non? But it suits my needs, produces much better pics than I though it would, but have wondered ocasionaly? Then when I read the bit about better results with VR switched of . . . you know, the mind starts to doubt its self?

 

Personal life has been very hard recently, almost no photography, last photo session was the one that I enterd the whit daisy in amoung the yellow daisies 'I think I'm lost'. Very little fishing, a lot of thinking and considering mine and Hazels situation. My A640 compact which I did use a lot, has gon on the blink, same falt as my previous Canon S50 compact, at £100 per repair, it aint worth it!!

 

Hazel is unwell, operation schedualed for early December, three months off work, I too have health problems that sudenly appeared, as I say, it feels a bit like being in tuble drier at the moment, some one pull the plug please!!

 

So, as I say I got to thinking, new compact . . . nah, cant abide the zombi pose, Canon have the eye piece but in my experiance are unreliable. So its the D80 . . . but need a new camera bag. Talking to Hazel, the other evening, she fancies having a go at the photography thing, she did a bit 10 years ago and came 6th in the Dustable photo club competition, beat me as well!!

 

Wandering through town yesterday, looked at the local camera emporium . . . found a bag that took my fancy a small 'National Geographic' job, just right for the D80 + 18-200 and one or two lenses, a bit 'Indiana Jones' style, I can dream

 

Then I spied in the cabinet a Nikon D40X body, used, but only as a demonstrator . . . point and shoot, with full DSLR capability. My lense compliment; 18-200VR, 18-70DX and a very old Sigma 70-300 Apo (c1995?). I negociated a price on the D40X of £150.00 + 12 months Gt, (majour chain, so safe . . . ? ). Thinking, Hazel can use it with the 18-70, nice and light, I can use it in place of my P&S compact with the 18-200VR, fishing, boat, general waving around etc. The D80 then comes in use with the 18-70 or the 70-300 for some seriouse creative work?

 

Any thoughts on that Andrew, or any one else? I'm planing to call in to the shop tomorrow, put my money where my mouth is, yeh, I know, a 'big mouth'!

 

Then, and this is where the VR question arose in my mind, look for a Nikon 70-300VR to replace the Sigma? Not to rush, wait for one to come up at the right price, or, gather options, on where else to go. I get very confused on ocasions these days, sometimes its hard to make decissions??? Very frustrating, getting old?

 

I hope thats clearer now?

Regards, SW

Edited October 14, 2008 by Sutton Warrior

[Chippy]

the short answer is it doesnt synthetically alter an image to make it sharper, it simply counteracts any movement.

[MrWiggly]

Basically the same as the "IS" range of Cannon lenses.

 

Gyroscopic reduction of some vertical or horizontal tremor ...

[Westie]

SW - sorry to hear about the health issues. I hope all resolves in good time.

 

I loved your daisy shot, by the way. Sharp, great depth of field and framed nicely.

 

Sorry for the delay in responding. Work is... well work, in a credit crunch.

 

FWIW, I have 3 lenses at the moment:

 

Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-5.6

Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR

Sigma 30mm f1.4

 

I understand that the 18-200mm, despite its limitations on the f front, is a very, very capable lens for all purpose walk around work. If I was going to limit myself to one lens on the Nikon system, the 18-200mm would probably be my all purpose walk around lens of choice. The range is quite incredible, and VR is an added bonus.

 

I can't really comment on the body issue. I use a D200 and wouldn't want to say anything about a product I haven't tried. I know that there are issues with D40, if the lens doesn't have SWM/AFS or similar. The price, though, seems very good. If they honour that price with a 12 month warranty (even if a 3rd party MAC style warranty), then snap their hand off, provided your existing lenses are compatible on the SWM/AFS issue. The 18-70 will be fine, as will the 18-200, as they are both AFS. Think there might be an issue with the Sigma though, so worth checking?

 

As for lenses, I have the 18-70mm, and I bought that over another kit lens, because it has great reviews, given its price. It is a slowish lens, but it still performs pretty bl00dy well. I can't criticise my copy. Softish wide open, but notch it down a stop or two and it does me proud. I've seen plenty of reviews really slapping the back of the 70-300mm VR too. Best in the 70-200mm range, but again, are we so critical of our personal shots, in day to day photography, that we would reject softer shots at 300mm wide open? Probably not, because we aren't printing large enough to see the flaws in the performance of the lens. 70-300mm VR would work on a D40, as I undertand things.

 

Hope this helps.

 

A.

[Sutton Warrior]

SW - sorry to hear about the health issues. I hope all resolves in good time.

 

I loved your daisy shot, by the way. Sharp, great depth of field and framed nicely.

 

Sorry for the delay in responding. Work is... well work, in a credit crunch.

 

FWIW, I have 3 lenses at the moment:

 

Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-5.6

Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR

Sigma 30mm f1.4

 

I understand that the 18-200mm, despite its limitations on the f front, is a very, very capable lens for all purpose walk around work. If I was going to limit myself to one lens on the Nikon system, the 18-200mm would probably be my all purpose walk around lens of choice. The range is quite incredible, and VR is an added bonus.

 

I can't really comment on the body issue. I use a D200 and wouldn't want to say anything about a product I haven't tried. I know that there are issues with D40, if the lens doesn't have SWM/AFS or similar. The price, though, seems very good. If they honour that price with a 12 month warranty (even if a 3rd party MAC style warranty), then snap their hand off, provided your existing lenses are compatible on the SWM/AFS issue. The 18-70 will be fine, as will the 18-200, as they are both AFS. Think there might be an issue with the Sigma though, so worth checking?

 

As for lenses, I have the 18-70mm, and I bought that over another kit lens, because it has great reviews, given its price. It is a slowish lens, but it still performs pretty bl00dy well. I can't criticise my copy. Softish wide open, but notch it down a stop or two and it does me proud. I've seen plenty of reviews really slapping the back of the 70-300mm VR too. Best in the 70-200mm range, but again, are we so critical of our personal shots, in day to day photography, that we would reject softer shots at 300mm wide open? Probably not, because we aren't printing large enough to see the flaws in the performance of the lens. 70-300mm VR would work on a D40, as I undertand things.

 

Hope this helps.

 

A.

 

Thanks Andrew, confirmed my thoughts, at £150 I can live wiith the (anorack'ish?) issues around the D40-D40X. I would be paying at least 150 quid for a compact saddled with loads of compromise type issues compared with any DSLR. The Sigma will not auto focus on the D40X, but I dont see that as a problem. Its is unlikly it will be partnerd with the D40X in Hazels hands, or mine, it will kept with the D80 on which it works just fine.

 

As you say, never print larger than A4.

 

A 'mono pod', budget 'VR' for the 70-300 to get the best out of it at the long end, off to a new start in my picture hobby

 

By the way, the daisey pic was shot with the 18-200VR/D80.

 

Thanks for you time Westie, regards, SW

 

Off to work, the bank drives!!!!

Edited October 15, 2008 by Sutton Warrior