VR or no VR?

[shutterbug]

Fellow shutterbugs,

As you know, I'd bought Rio008's Nikon D200 along with a nikkor 50mmf1.8 and sigma 70-300mm apo dg macro. So you see, i lack any kind of wide angle or a walkaround lens! I shoot with the 50mm prime most of the time, but when i need to go a lil bit more wide I have no option!

Though there are lotsa options like 18-55, 18-105,18-70,18-135, 18-200 etc, I can only afford the 18-55 lens currently(and yes i need one now, badly)
So the question is should I go for the newer VR version? No, I dont have a very steady hand!But for 18-55 only can I do without it? I am being quoted 4k for the normal one and 7k for the VR, with bill, in Cochin.
What say?

[KrishnenduKes]

Lens Query Approved

[hitanshu]

Invest it in a cheap tripod. Tripod kills shake infinitely more than VR. But yes, VR is anyday preferable. I'd suggest the 18-135 as it becomes an awesome all around lens. So chill till you can buy it!

[synn]

Get the VR lens.

Not because its VR, but because Nikon redesigned the glass for the newer lens. Delta had one for a while and we can both vouch forthe sheer brilliance of this tiny lens.

[nelson_sanjoy]

If you grow a good habit of carrying your good tripod everywhere (and I am not talking sunpak or velbon here) then you dont need an IS/VR.

IS/VR is a good way to compensate our shaky hands that too a certain extent.

There are many kinds of vibration that may make a pic look soft e.g. hand shake, shutter vibration,mirror movement , external factors etc..

I personally get the sharpest of pictures when my camera is on tripod and I use a remote shutter release.

[Aryan]

I'd say go for the VR. It is really worth it. I use the Canon 18-55mm IS lens (kit lens), and the difference between IS switched ON and OFF is really significant!

[KrishnenduKes]

I'd say go for the VR. It is really worth it. I use the Canon 18-55mm IS lens (kit lens), and the difference between IS switched ON and OFF is really significant!

Can you show us the difference please?

[Aryan]

Can you show us the difference please?
There is nothing to show, really. Shooting at 1/6 of a second (hand-held), it is all visible even without an example!

IS does make a difference; it does for me atleast! ;)

[anvancy-(macro analyst)]

taking a shake reduction lens is better.

suppose you have a tripod but you cant set it up or you have some probs,thats where your VR will do the trick.

better to be on the safe side.

anvancy

[surya@64]

VR or IS ...is a very good technology and its a boon in getting shake-free pic.

VR or IS will not be of much use if you are shooting a static subject and less bulky camera gear....I mean wide angle and say up to 50mm...You can always do with a tripod....

When you are shooting action...like BIF...AND SPORTS... VR or IS...really plays its role ....To some extent U can be done without a tripod...and shoot from various angle...which is not possible when U are on tripod...

It pays to have it on longer lens...due the lens length and weight ..and also the balance....of the equipment....

Finally if you can afford A VR or IS..LENS....go for it..

ITS BETTER TO HAVE TECHNOLOGY WITH YOU AND NOT TO USE IT...RATHER THAN NOT HAVING IT AND LATER REGRET IT...!!!

99% of my pic. are hand-held shots...on 100-400 L IS....CANON...

[shutterbug]

Like Synn said, I have heard that the newer VR lens , in addition to having VR, is basically a substantial improvement over the non VR version. Currently withoout a tripod(actually have a cheapo tripod but lost the base plate), though I will buying one for sure in the coming months. However I dont carry tripod always.
Leaving aside the fact that in the case of the 18-55 lens, the newer VR is better, what I would like to know is for a lens with less focal lengths like 18-55 or 18-70 is VR very crucial, unlike say a 55-200 or 70-300, at the tele end of which things are pretty sensitive?

Tao, 18-135 lens... I had considered it, two problems came into my mind:
1. Lack of dough, it costs 14k iirc.
2. It does not have VR
Else it would have been a great walkaround lens.

Surya, as you said the IS on your 100-400 lens is very beneficial. But would you require it on something less, like the 18-55?

Guys, pl note that the VR version almost costs double the non VR!

[surya@64]

VR or IS on 18-55 as is fancy....unless it is equipped by better optics ( front element)....

Yes ! if U are shooting low light....It will give U extra stops....but there...U are better off using a tripod...

You must be having a hands of a sismograph...to opt for an VR on 18-55..:p

Its like have both a kick start and a self start on your bike....AND...a self start for a car is must...!!!!:rolleyes:

I have never used the kick start on my ZMA...since last 5yrs....:):):)

Less luggage U haul ( unless inevitable) during your photographic trip....more U enjoy....!!!

[synn]

The 18-135 is optically inferior to the 18-55 VR. The 18-105 VR is what you should go for if you need the additional range.

The 18-55 VR's opticals aren't outresolved by even the D300's sensor as per reviews. That should tell you a thing or two about how good this lens is. :)

The only problem I find with is a lack of a distance meter on-lens. Perhaps, I'm nitpicking here. :D

[Deltaone]

Why are you going for a lens with bill again? Should be able to get it cheaper grey. Get the VR, i repeat GET THE VR. Yes, the non-VR is almost as good, and that lens can close-focus like nobody's business. I've got plenty of nice pseudo macros with that lens.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3547737329_a75886dbc5.jpg


Taken with said lens. Now both versions can close-focus just as well. But the VR does make a difference. Ive gotten good handeld shots as low as 1/2 with that lens. As mentioned before i have shaky hands. Sometimes you see a shot which you just cant wait to put a tripod down for, the VR helps, a lot.

The 18-55 is the best of all the nikon 18-xx lenses. None of the others come close in sharpness or resolving power. Yes it has no A/M and also the manual focus ring is a joke. But other than that, it is pretty good. The second best in the nikon range is the 18-105. Quite close in price around here, iirc, quite different in india though.

It is still my favorite lens, and is the first lens on my list of must get lenses. Since you already have a 70-300, i doubt you will need the extra range. Just swap over.

To summarize, check grey price of that lens. iirc, should be under 6k. And yes, its worth the money. That is a lens that will still work well with the d300/s should you decide to upgrade. So its worth the money and again, the VR makes a very very nice difference indeed.

[shutterbug]

Delta, that is a beautiful shot!
You say the price difference btween 18-55vr abd 18-105vr is very less, how much do these cost in Singy?

Surya, You are one lucky lazy guy! 5 years and never a kickstart!

[Deltaone]

Not sure, but iirc, theyre both priced around the same. As of the moment, the price i found was around 320 SD or so, 10k give or take a bit.

[shutterbug]

So the 18-55vr is quite expensive there! While the 18-105 is a much sweeter as a deal over there. Let me see if I can trouble my cousin in Singapore to get it for me.

[Deltaone]

Er sorry, i thought you meant the price diff between the VR and non VR versions of the 18-55. The 18-105 is 480 SD new. Which is quite expensive. But you can find a whole load of those used or actually brand new unused for around 320-350 on clubsnap (photography forum in sing). Mainly because the d90 is not available as body only anywhere here or if it is, it is a bit too expensive. So what most people do is buy the kit and sell of the lens for around 300-350 max.

[shutterbug]

I guess I will look at gettin the 18-55 VR for the best price here.

[Xavier]

Titus, the price difference between the non VR (Rs.5995) and the VR (Rs.6995) versions is only 1000 bucks @ JJ Mehta. In this case you should definitely go for the VR version.

[shutterbug]

Xavier, yes I have seen the prices on jjmehta. But in my first post on this thread, I have said that I have been offered the non VR for 4k and VR for 7k! So I am getting the non VR version for an amount I can afford. Leaves me cash for my next accessory- tripod!

[Xavier]

Xavier, yes I have seen the prices on jjmehta. But in my first post on this thread, I have said that I have been offered the non VR for 4k and VR for 7k! So I am getting the non VR version for an amount I can afford. Leaves me cash for my next accessory- tripod!

Oh. I'm so damn blind. Anyway, even if the norm would have meant that you go for the optically better VR version and save up for the tripod later, I'd still go ahead with your decision of getting the non VR version. :)

[shutterbug]

Guys, thank you! sorry for not updating the thread, I bought a 18-55mm vr dx in mid Dec 09 and it rocks! Thanks again.

[Bibudesh]

I dont think a VR will be that useful for such small FLs. VR is useful for tele or macro purposes.
I have used both , the 18-55 VR and non-VR and I could not find any difference in the image quality.

[shutterbug]

I dont think a VR will be that useful for such small FLs. VR is useful for tele or macro purposes.
I have used both , the 18-55 VR and non-VR and I could not find any difference in the image quality.

Bibudesh,

You are right, VR is really useful for larger zooms. I just got the VR, because the lens was reported to be better.