Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should I get a VR lens for my D90?
- Thread starter dcorwin
- Start date
VR Worth It: Yes & No
VR Worth It: Yes & No
I primarily work as an industrial, commercial photographer. The benefit is that I get access to some top Nikkor glass, including the VR 70-200mm, 80-400mm & 24-120mm. On the downside, my corporate bosses don't approve of bad video being posted online if it shows corporate property. And I can't say that I've been driven to shoot & post examples of VR D90 video (good or bad) on my personal time. So you'll have to take my word for what I say...
What I can say is that VR works- sometimes. I've posted about this before on the D90 board. I've had experiences where the VR was a bit jerky: like it was designed to work between still frames shot at 5 or 10 fps, not 24 fps, wherein the shutter is open 90% (or more) of the time. It may also be that as the 24-120mm is my favorite lens, the VR motors have gotten worn down, and aren't performing to factory spec.
I've found the VR to be most useful when used in conjunction with another stabilizing system, be it a tripod, a gyro, a monopod, etc. VR will not smooth out jerky movements and shake from handholding a camera while sitting in the back of a pickup truck that's bouncing down a dirt road...
In fact, the VR can exacerbate the problem! I've seen VR exagerate the rolling shutter effect, making tall subjects stretch and shrink by as much as 10%. I theorize that at slower shutter speeds, say 1/25 or 1/50, the image is actually compressed or stretched as the lens elements are moved by the VR.
The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is a pretty darn good lens, and the VR makes it all the better. I've not been as impressed by the VR performance in the 80-400 at the extreme end: Because the lens nearly doubles in length when zoomed out, there is a great deal of cantilevered glass at the far end of the lens. Fully extended, the lens is rather susceptible to wind-induced shake. The VR simply can't compensate for all that glass moving at the end of a 16 inch tube if the shutter speed is anywhere near 1/50th per second. At higher shutter speeds a distasteful strobe can show up, where the image jumps up and down 5% or so. Panning or tilting the camera only exacerbates the nastiness.
I like the VR lenses on a tripod. I'll even use the 24-120mm with my D90 on my Captain Stubling rig. I won't fly any of my zoom VR lenses on my GlideCam 2000Pro. In general I prefer to work with prime lenses handheld. I've yet to have the opportunity to use a VR prime lens, but I'd be interested to see how they'd perform handheld.
VR Worth It: Yes & No
I primarily work as an industrial, commercial photographer. The benefit is that I get access to some top Nikkor glass, including the VR 70-200mm, 80-400mm & 24-120mm. On the downside, my corporate bosses don't approve of bad video being posted online if it shows corporate property. And I can't say that I've been driven to shoot & post examples of VR D90 video (good or bad) on my personal time. So you'll have to take my word for what I say...
What I can say is that VR works- sometimes. I've posted about this before on the D90 board. I've had experiences where the VR was a bit jerky: like it was designed to work between still frames shot at 5 or 10 fps, not 24 fps, wherein the shutter is open 90% (or more) of the time. It may also be that as the 24-120mm is my favorite lens, the VR motors have gotten worn down, and aren't performing to factory spec.
I've found the VR to be most useful when used in conjunction with another stabilizing system, be it a tripod, a gyro, a monopod, etc. VR will not smooth out jerky movements and shake from handholding a camera while sitting in the back of a pickup truck that's bouncing down a dirt road...
In fact, the VR can exacerbate the problem! I've seen VR exagerate the rolling shutter effect, making tall subjects stretch and shrink by as much as 10%. I theorize that at slower shutter speeds, say 1/25 or 1/50, the image is actually compressed or stretched as the lens elements are moved by the VR.
The Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is a pretty darn good lens, and the VR makes it all the better. I've not been as impressed by the VR performance in the 80-400 at the extreme end: Because the lens nearly doubles in length when zoomed out, there is a great deal of cantilevered glass at the far end of the lens. Fully extended, the lens is rather susceptible to wind-induced shake. The VR simply can't compensate for all that glass moving at the end of a 16 inch tube if the shutter speed is anywhere near 1/50th per second. At higher shutter speeds a distasteful strobe can show up, where the image jumps up and down 5% or so. Panning or tilting the camera only exacerbates the nastiness.
I like the VR lenses on a tripod. I'll even use the 24-120mm with my D90 on my Captain Stubling rig. I won't fly any of my zoom VR lenses on my GlideCam 2000Pro. In general I prefer to work with prime lenses handheld. I've yet to have the opportunity to use a VR prime lens, but I'd be interested to see how they'd perform handheld.