Does anyone have any experience with SLR lenses that utilize vibration reduction (VR for Nikon and IS for Canon)?

I'm wondering if it makes sense to spend the extra money on the lenses now, or just hope that future SLR/D-SLR camera bodies will get VR and IS technology thereby saving some money by essentially making every lens a VR lens.

Currently I'm looking at the Nikon 80-200 F/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR. There is about a $600 price difference between the two lenses and it seems like that's all going to the VR technology.

Thoughts?

 

I have an IS lens for my canon and love it. Of course it can't fix everything but it does help.

I don't think they really can just add it to the body, as it would probably depend on the lens etc.

It is nice that some of the high-end fixed lens cams are getting it.

Rereading yours, I do not however think it is worth a $600 price difference if VR is the only difference. (If it is using a much higher quality glass as well then it would be understandable)

 

This is what I'm looking at

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D ED Autofocus Lens (Tripod Collar Included) for $800 after rebate
Lens Construction: 16 elements in 11 groups (3 ED)
Picture Angle: 30?10' - 12?20'
Minimum Focus Distance: 6 ft.
Maximum Reproduction Ratio (Macro Setting): 1:7.1
Attachment/ Filter Size: 77mm
Dimensions (diameter x length - in.): 3.4 x 7.4 in.
Weight (oz.): 45.9
Nikon Lens Hood: HB-7
Case(s): CL-43A
Included Accessories: CL-43A Case, Rear and front lens caps



vs.

Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF Autofocus Lens (Vibration Reduction) for $1450 after rebate

Focal Length: 70-200mm
Maximum Aperture: f/2.8
Lens Construction: 21 elements in 15 groups (5ED)
Picture Angle (35mm): 34 degrees 20 minutes - 12 degrees 20 minutes
Picture Angle (Nikon Digital SLR): 22 degrees 50 minutes - 8 degrees
Vibration Reduction Mode: Normal/Active
VR Effect: 3 Stops
Teleconverter: TC-14E/TC-20E
Number of Diaphragm Blades: 9 blades (rounded)
Shooting Distance: 4.9 ft (AF), 4.6 ft (MF) to infinity
Maximum Reproduction Ratio: AF: 1:6.1 (x0.16), MF: 1/5.6 (x0.18)
Lens Drive: By Silent Wave Motor
Focusing: Internal Focusing (IF) Type
Filter Attachment Size: 77mm
Hood: HB-29 (Supplied)
Case: Semi-soft case CL-M2 (Supplied)
Dimensions (Diameter x Length): Approx. 3.4 in x 8.5 in
Weight: 3.2 lbs. w/Tripod Collar; 3 lbs w/o Tripod Collar



Well, from my look at the above, it looks like the 70-200 VR has the following advantages:
- Vibration Reduction
- Better Glass (5 ED vs. 3 ED)
- Faster Focusing (silent wave motor)

So yes you're right there is more to it than just VR.

 

I too have an IS, 28-135mm. Unfortunately I haven't had much time lately to use it but...I highly recommend this feature. It allows you to get a relatively sharp image and rediculously slow shutter speeds, hand held. @135 I felt safe going down to around 1/30. If you don't want to carry a tripod around all of the time you should go for it!

 

Dave,

I have the 70-200 2.8 VR at work...amazing lens...and yes, the vibration reduction is a big plus. I'm not entirely sure that the glass is all that better - the 80-200 2.8 they are advertising was quite a bit more expensive ($1300-1400?)when released 4 years ago - I owned it for some time before I sold my personal Nikon stuff for Leica. It was quite simply one of the sharpest Nikkors I ever owned. I lugged that thing around Italy for 2 weeks, and it astounding in color rendition, contrast and sharpness. BTW - that is an excellent price for it. I believe it too has a silent wave motor.


What you ARE getting for $600 extra - is the vibration reduction, G series lens, an extra 10 MM on the low end, the extra ED glass is nice to boot. If I were doing it, I'd save & scrimp for the latest version.

 

Dan,

That actually helps me out quite a bit.

The other thing that's playing into the 80-200 vs. 70- 200 VR for me is that most of my usage may be tripod mounted, in which case I'm paying for unused vibration reduction. However, I still would like to occasionally shoot handheld for panning shots.

Dave

 

The ultrasonic motor is a nice plus as well, although I can't believe they don't include it on the $600 lens.

If you are using it on the tripod be sure to turn the IS off as it may activate and actually blur the photo.

 

Dave, I looked at Nikon USA's site - the 80-200 that you are showing is 2 generations removed from Nikon's most recent hi-speed zoom in this range. That's why it is priced as agressively as it is. The 80-200 I owned had a silent wave motor in it - this one does not. I would esitmate this lens dates back at least 6 years in it's design. While optically it is a fine lens, it does indeed lack the S - wave motor of the current 80-200 & 70-200 VR lenses. Nikkor lenses with the S - wave motors can be identified with the AF-S designation. So you are also looking at focusing driven by the D70 body you have if you use the 80-200 - and on a lens of that size, it will be noticeably slower.

 

Thanks for breaking that down for me a little more.

I'm going to go to the camera store this afternoon and try to get my hands on both lenses.

 

I believe the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S has been replaced by the 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR and that the 80-200 non-AF-S is still being made. I've got the 80-200 AF-S and it's an excellent lens, though VR would be nice for some situations.

Mark

 

Back from the camera store.

I snapped pictures with both the 70-200 VR and the 80-200 (non AF-S). I'll look at them at full size later tonight. I couldn't really see much difference looking through the view finder in terms of the glass quality. That said, the VR does focus faster. I could also see how VR would help considerably at the 200 mm end when hand held.

My feeling right now is that I should just wait and save up the money for the VR lens. In the meantime when I need a lens in that range I should just rent one. $30 for the weekend seems like a fair price for occasional use between now and when I get the funds together for the VR.

 

Dave -- I have 3 Canon IS lenses -- 100-400L, 28-135 and the new 17-85. IMHO, the IS is worth at least one notch in film speed (like ISO200 vs 400) and I will never get another long focal length non-IS lens.

BTW: The Canon lenses are in use on my old D60 and my new 20D. Earlier I had a Canon Pro90 with 10x zoom and IS and it worked very well. I also have a set of IS binoculars, and they are fantastic, even from a moving ship.

Hope this helps -- Tom

 

You might want to read Tom Hogan's review of the 70-200 AF-S VR here: http://www.bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm He also gives a quick history of Nikon f/2.8 lenses in this focal length range.


Mark