to VR or not to VR?

[Homerboy]

Some of you may recall my "I'm a newbie." thread from a couple months back:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2224536

I ended up purchasing a nikon D5100 w/ kit 18-55mm lens and have thus far loved it.

One of the main uses for this camera will be baseball photos of my son, and baseball season is almost upon us, so I need to pick up a telephoto lens. (I'm leaning towards 300mm at this point).

The problem I have is $$$. I'm a tad strapped right now and would like to do this as economically possible. I can get a standard 70-300 Nikon lens for $120 from B&H. But no VR. VR is going to cost double that at $260.

Is the VR THAT noticeable at the longer lengths? Should I just bit the bullet and spend the $260 and eat PB&J for a month?

Any input will be appreciated.

Thanks

PS: If anyone has a used telephoto lens for sale, I'm buying!

 

[CuriousMike]

On a cloudy day, with my 55-200, I often have to bump the ISO up to keep the shutter speed fast.

This is at ISO 800, focal 105mm, shutter speed of 1000;
At that high of a shutter speed, I'm not sure how much VR was helping.

I've found I'm getting a lot more keepers when pushing the ISO to keep the shutter speed up.

On bright sunny days, if you can keep the shutter speed up, I'm not sure how much VR helps.

Edit: For 8-12 year old play (60 foot base paths), the 200 is stretching it - particularly for outfield shots. Cropping is my friend.
I heartily recommend going with the 300 to have some breathing room.

 

[swanysto]

I don't have Nikon, but I have the 70-300 standard for Canon. I will tell you this. It takes gorgeous still shots. But for sports, it leaves a lot to be desired. If you take rapid shots, usually you can a good one. But that gets annoying very quickly. I rented a 70-300 IS just to test it. It wasn't amazing, but the rate at which I got nice shots was far superior. It may just be mental, but it seems like the auto focus was faster as well. Out of 5 shots, I would get 1-2 blurry ones. With my standard, I would get 4-5.

I can't guarantee you anything since it was Canon products. But I have found that when the lens is more expensive, there is a reason or two. I have noticed that IQ isn't always better, but it usually allows you to do more, whether it is take better pictures in lower light, or in sporting events, or wildlife.

 

[pacent]

If you're shooting sports, you'll probably want the VR feature, as you'll be able to gain a couple of stops. The 70-300mm is rather slow at the long end, so hopefully you'll be shooting during a lot of sunny day games.

Just for kicks, try renting (or borrowing if you have photog friends) one of those pro lenses (300mm f/2.8, or even the 70-200mm f/2.8) and try shooting with one. You'll quickly see why fast glass is important when shooting sports.

 

[Munky]

I would not even consider a telephoto lens without VR. Maybe you could get away without it if using a monopod or other support platform, but handheld - fuggetaboutit.

 

[Homerboy]

Interesting responses thus far. 2 people saying "get the VR", and one that shoots sports (Baseball) says it's not entirely necessary.

As for cropping SeriousMike, I wholeheartedly agree. I cropped probably 100 photos last year with a 200mm (borrowed) and there were some that suffered. that's why I wanted to go 300mm with my own lens.

I think we should get our kids to scrimmage!

 

[GoSharks]

I don't understand why people are saying that you want VR. VR will be useless for sports. By the time VR becomes useful, all the players and ball will be blurry due to their motion.

You need high shutter speeds for sports, well over '1/focal length'. VR is useless at those shutter speeds.

 

[Munky]

That's true, but the OP didn't say if he's going to use the lens for sports exclusively. The lack of VR pretty much forces you to use high shutter speeds.

 

[CuriousMike]

When your kid comes in to pitch at 6:30 pm on an overcast Tuesday night, you don't want to be staring at a shutter speed of 1/30 or even 1/200.

If you haven't, learn to trust the ISO on your camera to boost it.

I was stuck on "point focus" forever, but I've recently moved to 3D tracking which is helping more photos to stay focused on the moving subject.

 

[Homerboy]

at the longer focal lengths, it will almost exclusively be sports. not 100%, but certainly the vast majority.

right now I'm leaning towards a non-VR just to save the pennies. If it suffers, eventually I will get a better lens.

When I get home later I might post some links to options from B&H.

(thoughts on Mikkor vs Tamron or something else?)

 

[tenthumbs]

I'm no expert but I've always read that VR will actually hinder your ability to quickly focus when shooting fast paced sports. Did I read that wrong?

 

[CuriousMike]

Homer, let me know what you end up with.
I'm looking at B&H, and I see the imported lens for $120 which seems cheap enough to take a risk on.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Any input will be appreciated.

Generally, VR doesn't help that much for action. However, it is huge on everything else you will do with a telephoto lens.

EDIT: Is that a AF-S lens? The one I looked at was AF-D and will not AF on the D5100.

The surprisingly sharp Nikon 55-200 VR is $129 refurb w/ VR from Adorama.
http://www.adorama.com/NK55200DXR.html

Review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm

JR

 

[Homerboy]

Homer, let me know what you end up with.
I'm looking at B&H, and I see the imported lens for $120 which seems cheap enough to take a risk on.

That's the same one I was looking at.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._70_300mm.html

 

[Homerboy]

Generally, VR doesn't help that much for action. However, it is huge on everything else you will do with a telephoto lens.

EDIT: Is that a AF-S lens? The one I looked at was AF-D and will not AF on the D5100.

The surprisingly sharp Nikon 55-200 VR is $129 refurb w/ VR from Adorama.
http://www.adorama.com/NK55200DXR.html

Review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm

JR

You sure that's a VR?

 

[CuriousMike]

Yeah, that t'ain't going to auto-focus on our bodies.

 

[Homerboy]

Yeah, that t'ain't going to auto-focus on our bodies.

NOTE: G-type Nikkor lenses are fully compatible with the F5, F100, N80, N65, N60, N50, N4004-series, PRONEA 6i, PRONEA S, D100 and D-series (or any newer model, except D40/D40X & D60) cameras. They are not compatible with other Nikon cameras. For the F4, N90-series, N70, N8008-series and N6006 cameras, only programmed auto or shutter-priority auto exposure mode can be used.
Note! AF not supported by D40,D40X, D60, D3000 & D5000 cameras.

Not even the D5100?

 

[Homerboy]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...5_6_Di_LD.html
?

 

[Homerboy]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._DG_Macro.html
?

 

[radhak]

VibrationReduction helps with camera shake, ie, when hands aren't (or can't be) steady enough.

This means, when light is low, or at tele part of a long telephoto.

eg : indoor pictures with flash; outdoor pictures when overcast, or in a rainforest, etc.

It also means VR is useless if the subject is moving and/or you are tracking with the camera. Like sports; or children playing; etc. Because VR negates 'vibration' but not 'movement'.

But the lens needs to work for VR - it has to actively counter-act vibration; this means there's noise, and there's delay while focusing/shooting.

Me, after using a lot of VR lenses, I've finally gotten rid of all of them. All my current lenses are non-VR. I'd rather spend my money on 'faster' lens, like apertures of 2.8 (or wider, ie F1.8 or even F1.4). my 'zoom' lens is the cheap 70-300 by Quantaray (F4 to F5.6), and it's given me better service (ie, more to what I want and expect) than the VR's.

Btw, JR, that lens is not VR, but the plain vanilla one.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

You sure that's a VR?

My bad. Here is the VR version - $149
http://www.adorama.com/NK55200VRR.html

Review:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm

JR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

NOTE: G-type Nikkor lenses are fully compatible with the F5, F100, N80, N65, N60, N50, N4004-series, PRONEA 6i, PRONEA S, D100 and D-series (or any newer model, except D40/D40X & D60) cameras. They are not compatible with other Nikon cameras. For the F4, N90-series, N70, N8008-series and N6006 cameras, only programmed auto or shutter-priority auto exposure mode can be used.
Note! AF not supported by D40,D40X, D60, D3000 & D5000 cameras.

Not even the D5100?

The D5100 does not have a built-in focus motor. Thus, the lens must have an internal motor. For Nikon, AF-S lenses are what you need. Tamron, Sigma, Tokina all have lenses that will work but I am not sure of the individual nomenclature used by these companies.

BTW, the reference to "G-Type" refers to the lack of an aperture ring on the lens. The D5100 will work with G-Type lenses if they are AF-S.

JR

 

[CuriousMike]

I've looked at this Sigma (online) before.
There are two versions of it on Amazon, with the red-ring version slightly more expensive --- but not sure why.
This will AF on the D5100 body, but you should read the reviews.
If you're not going to use this in dim light, it might be OK.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._DG_Macro.html
?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Have you considered just using a fast prime lens and cropping the photos? Try getting closer to your subject.

 

[Homerboy]

Have you considered just using a fast prime lens and cropping the photos? Try getting closer to your subject.

I don't think they'd appreciate me working out to 2nd base to get a photo of the center-fielder