Do I need VR

[Glenda]

I want to get a 24-70 f2.8 lens. The Tamron appealed to me because of the VC which the others don't have but it is impossible to buy with a Nikon mount at present and nobody can say how long before they are available. Do I need VR. I have taken 2 photos at 70mm with my 70-300. The first is with VR off, the second it is switched on. I shot in Jpeg with the same settings and only added the same sharpening in PP and then resized. There is a slight breeze here at present but I hope I got these between small gusts.

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x392/AusGabby/070vroff.jpg

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x392/AusGabby/069vron.jpg

[old dog]

I honestly can`t see any difference between the two shots.

[I @ M]

Seeing as the shutter speed was 1/250 at 70 mm I would say that VR would not have contributed much at all.

Repeat the test with the shutter speed at 1/50 and see what difference there is. That is what VR is designed for, to allow steady hand held shots at below the focal length to shutter speed ratio.

[Art Vandelay]

On both the shutter speed is 1/250.

You wont see any benefit of VR/IS until lower then normal handheld shutterspeeds

[Sifor]

VR would be nice, sometimes I've found myself wanting it and instead having to bump the ISO up to 1600.. although not a big problem for the D800 (or similar FX cameras, including Canon). I can't see any difference between those two shots you've posted.

[Bennymiata]

In good lighting, you can live without VR, but in low light and slow shutter speeds when hand holding, you absolutely need VR.

A bit like asking if you need auto focus.
Sure, you can focus manually, as I often do, but auto focus sure does come in handy.
I sometimes do jobs at parties, where it is so dark, that when I look through the viewfinder, all I see is black.
Without good auto-focus, I wouldn't be able to take a picture.

Same with VR, or OS or whatever various manufacturers call it, you can live without it, but there are times where you will be thankful you have it.
Generally, the longer the lens, or the darker the environment, the more you need VR.
Sigma also do a 24-70 with OS.

[arthurking83]

.....
Sigma also do a 24-70 with OS.

:confused013

AFAIK, the only stabilised 24-70 lens with f/2.8 aperture is the Tammy!

I also believe that you don't need optical stabilisation, BUT!!, it's handier to have than not to have.
If you don't need the absolute best possible quality image rendering optic, which is theoretically the Nikon lens, then I reckon the Tammy is the way to go.
(this is my current preference for this lens type).

While the common consensus is that for a less blurred image, a faster shutter speed is the better option, don't live by this axiom! on the odd occasion, you can get weird results where you may miss perfect sharpness in a shot at 1/500s and 100mm, but can get better sharpness at 1/30s(with no optical stabilisation assistance). So my motto is, while it helps, don't bank on it(as you would a sturdy tripod.

Other factors can come into play. Just because a shot is made at 1/250s and only at 70mm, even with an overall good technique, you can occasionally miss a shot and get slight motion induced blur in the image.

My thoughts are that you get the lens you think will give you the best results. Even if that means waiting a bit.

I'll end up with this Tammy one day very soon too.

[Glenda]

Thanks for the advice - never thought, but I should have shot it much slower. Will try it again tomorrow at a slower speed and see what results.
The older I get, the less strength and stability so think I should wait for the Tamron, hope not for too long. Also think will be a real bonus if wanting to use the lens in low light hand held.

[Bennymiata]

You're correct Arthur.
I was thinking of the 17-50 Sigma 2.8 with OS.

[arthurking83]

.... Will try it again tomorrow at a slower speed and see what results.

I think that VR is one of those can assist the operator to a certain degree, as opposed to something that provides is answer to a problem.
ie. if your technique is slowly fading, then VR may not actually be the answer .... although it may help to an extent.
I think the proper answer(to the issue at hand) may be to attempt to find a new technique, either as one part of the solution(eg, in conjunction with optical stabilisation), or as an entirely separate solution in itself.



.... Also think will be a real bonus if wanting to use the lens in low light hand held.

Don't think tho that a lens with optical stabilisation will be a panacea for less than ideal technique.
Over the past couple of years, I too have found that I could do with a bit of help from the likes of technology such as VR(or VC or OS, or whatever they want to call it).
But in saying that, more than 90% of my photography technique is tripod based.

But with the two lenses I have access too that have VR, it can help in many situations but this is not guaranteed.
And to confuse the issue, you may find that it doesn't help you in some odd situations .. for example sometimes at higher shutter speeds(eg 1/60 at 105mm) images come out blurrier than at lower slower speeds(1/30s).. it's just weird.

On a longer focal length lens tho I guess that it would help more often than not .... simply due to the magnification of that longer focal length lens, and hence angular velocity issue.

For best possible results, nothing beats a decent tripod that is used efficiently.

[cupic]

As above the shutter speed was acceptable to not need VR.In the same token VR should be switched off at anything over 1/500s.VR does help at low shutter speed,but the tamron is a beauty with VC so if your not a diehard I would go with the Tamron at a huge cost saving

cheers