Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Michael Schnell, Jun 20, 2010.

  1. It's obvious that this is a very nice lens replacing our 80-200 f2.8 for
    better AF speed and for compatibility with the 1.4x tele-converter.

    But we did not go for the VR feature, having got bad reports on VR with
    older lenses.

    Can you comment on the VR ? Experiences ? When is it viable to use, when
    should it be switched off ?

    Thanks,
    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, Jun 20, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Michael,

    While I haven't used that particular lens, I have VR II on all my Nikon
    lenses (except the 35mm f/1.8) and I wouldn't be without it. Great to see
    the viewfinder image stabilise as the VR kicks in. I use it all the time,
    except if the camera is tripod mounted.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 20, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Turn it off when using a tripod, or if the shutter speed is fast
    Technically correct, but I find that having the more stable viewfinder
    image with VR on is a significant benefit to better framing, particularly
    in windy conditions, so I leave it enabled.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 20, 2010
    #3
  4. Michael Schnell

    J. Clarke Guest

    Can't speak for that lens specifically but VR in general works fine.
    Turn it off if you want to deliberately create background motion blur.
    There's a religious argument about whether to turn it off or not if
    you're using a tripod, so do whatever floats your boat in that regard.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 20, 2010
    #4
  5. Than exactly is the point in question.

    The main target is dressage horses. So the subject is moving, quickly
    changing between slow and fast movement. Constant panning and constant
    adjustment of zoom can't be avoided. I suppose switching VR on and off
    while aiming is not sensible/possible.

    What do you think will _usually_ be better "off" or "normal" ?

    Thanks for your thoughts !

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, Jun 20, 2010
    #5
  6. Than exactly is the point in question.
    For racing cars, I leave VR on. I also did at an air-show where I was
    zooming as well.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 20, 2010
    #6
  7. Michael Schnell

    me Guest

    You don't say what kind of shutter speeds you can achieve in these
    environments. You also don't say what lens and how well you can
    manipulate it under these conditions. My 70-200 f/2.8 VR and 200-400
    f/4 VR are quite different in how they can be easily manipulated.
    Changes in panning speed are accomplished quite differently between
    them. You can't ignore physics, size and mass have definite effects.
     
    me, Jun 20, 2010
    #7
  8. In fact, VR is incapable of improving any shot over 1/500 second. Nikon
    You are ignoring the fact that the VR makes the viewfinder image much more
    stable, whatever the shutter speed. This may not matter to you, but I
    find it a major advantage.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 21, 2010
    #8
  9. Michael Schnell

    Wilba Guest

    It's worth finding out if you need to. For instance, using the EF-S 18-55 at
    18mm, I have to expose for longer than a minute to see any effect of IS. At
    55mm a five minute exposure won't show any effect. If your shutter speed is
    of the same order as the period of the resonant frequency of the
    camera/tripod rig, IS could be a definite advantage.
     
    Wilba, Jun 22, 2010
    #9
  10. Michael Schnell

    Wilba Guest

    I'm not, but every system of finite mass and stiffness has a resonant
    frequency.
     
    Wilba, Jun 22, 2010
    #10
  11. With horse sport we never do below 1/250 and always do panning. So VR is
    not useful for this.

    Unfortunately you can't get the lens without VR for some €200 less :(.

    -Michael
    (PS. The lens is GREAT !)
     
    Michael Schnell, Jun 26, 2010
    #11
  12. The article mentioned by C. J. seems to suggest that faster than 1/500
    VR will not help at all and between 1/250 and 1/500 the benefit does not
    justify the risk. So we should leave it off,
    Point taken. We should experiment a bit on that.

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, Jun 26, 2010
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.