Nikon VR (Vibration Reduction) is it worth it?

[wakerider017]

I have the 18-55mm lens that comes with the D40.

I could sell it on craigslist and get the 18-55mm VR lens.

I would end up paying about $60-70 dollars for the switch.



Is the new VR lens worth the swap? Do you guys like the VR? (I have heard they they have not just added VR to the lens but also added other improvements...)

 

[benzslrpee]

i probably wouldn't shell out the extra dollars for VR on a 18-55mm...if it was on a 55-200mm i would say go for it.

 

[ChrisA]

I have the 18-55mm lens that comes with the D40.

I could sell it on craigslist and get the 18-55mm VR lens.

I would end up paying about $60-70 dollars for the switch.



Is the new VR lens worth the swap? Do you guys like the VR? (I have heard they they have not just added VR to the lens but also added other improvements...)

If you can shoot with a shutter speed of 1/60th or faster then you would never have a need for VR. And if you are using the wide half of the lens's zoom range then if you can shoot at 1/30th or faster you would never need VR. With a lens as wide as the 18-55 I'd think subject motion is more of a problem than camera shake.

So VR would be useful only for hand held shots in low light where you can't use a flash and the subject does not move. If you do a lot of that kind of work, buy the VR lens. But for subjects that don't move a tripod is usable

The reviews I read said the VR version of the lens is more susceptible to flair than is the non-VR version.

 

[wakerider017]

If you can shoot with a shutter speed of 1/60th or faster then you would never have a need for VR. And if you are using the wide half of the lens's zoom range then if you can shoot at 1/30th or faster you would never need VR. With a lens as wide as the 18-55 I'd think subject motion is more of a problem than camera shake.

So VR would be useful only for hand held shots in low light where you can't use a flash and the subject does not move. If you do a lot of that kind of work, buy the VR lens. But for subjects that don't move a tripod is usable

The reviews I read said the VR version of the lens is more susceptible to flair than is the non-VR version.

Awesome post!!! Thanks for clearing that up!

In that case I will be keeping my 18-55

 

[compuwar]

So VR would be useful only for hand held shots in low light where you can't use a flash and the subject does not move. If you do a lot of that kind of work, buy the VR lens. But for subjects that don't move a tripod is usable

The other place where VR is useful is where there's photographer movement, so if you shoot from a boat, car or other moving platform then it can be more useful than not. I own one VR lens- it doesn't get a lot of use, and it's a telephoto. In general, I think VR is wasted on wide angle leses.

 

[Hmac]

I use my 70-200VR from a boat frequently, shooting water sports. I've pretty much found VR to be not that useful even in that situation because I can use a fast enough shutter speed that camera shake isn't an issue. The times where I did find it potentially useful were early morning ski runs at or after sunset when the light was lower. With the D3 on auto ISO up to 6400, I would anticipate that I'll be able to turn it off at those hours.