How important is in-lens image stabilization?

[annnewjerz]

For a telephoto lens at longer focal lengths like 200 or 300mm, how important is VR/IS/whatever?

I know that VR is supposed to "eliminate the need" for a tripod, but if you were shooting with say, the 70-300mm in regular daylight/slightly overcast conditions do you really have to worry about a blurry image? AND--if so, would a monopod help? Is the VR really worth the extra money if it's a lens that you'd like, but will only use in the specific situations listed above?

If possible, anyone who has a lens, whether it be the 55-200, the 70-300 or even the 18-200 with the VR turned off that they could post, that'd be great!

Thanks.
Ann

 

[MICKEY88]

For a telephoto lens at longer focal lengths like 200 or 300mm, how important is VR/IS/whatever?

I know that VR is supposed to "eliminate the need" for a tripod, but if you were shooting with say, the 70-300mm VR in regular daylight/slightly overcast conditions do you really have to worry about a blurry image? AND--if so, would a monopod help? Is the VR really worth the extra money if it's a lens that you'd like, but will only use in the specific situations listed above?

If possible, anyone who has a lens, whether it be the 55-200, the 70-300 or even the 18-200 with the VR turned off that they could post, that'd be great!

Thanks.
Ann

is VR nice to have...yes
is it neccessary, no,, photographers created millions of sharp pictures before vr was invented..


in the situations you mention youshould be able to get a high enough shutter speed to eliminate camera shake
another factor is how steady the photographers hands are,, good camera holding technique can help steady the camera...

 

[Steve's Girl]

OK, I violated your first request - no photos to post as I always leave VR on if not on a tripod. But, I can give my opinion. I have both the 18-200 VR and the 70-200 VR lens. At the longer focal lengths, I find the VR very helpful especially for indoor photos. If your shutter speed is fast enough, the VR doesn't really matter. But, for a shutter speed less than 1/250 or so, it helps a lot! At the longer focal lengths, any blur from movement of the camera is magnified (I'm sure someone can give a better technical description of this, but that is my practical desription). The 70-200 lens in particular is a monster and is difficult for me to handhold. Without VR, I would struggle to get a clear shot with that lens unless I was using a monopod or tripod. I can use a shutter speed of 1/15 with VR and still get pretty clear shots. Now, you wouldn't want to print a poster size print, but good enough for smaller prints. I would not attempt handholding at that shutter speed with any lens without VR. So, in brief, I think VR is very helpful at longer focal lengths where any slight movement will be magnified if using a shutter speed below 1/250.

 

[annnewjerz]

Thanks for the replies. I'm asking because this past weekend, I saw a 70-300mmG AF at a local camera store used. New, they are only about $100, but this one was in what looked to be VERY good condition for only around $75. I didn't get it because I was scared of the lack of VR at 300mm focal length, but feel like I should have. Currently, it won't AF with my D60, but I'm considering an upgrade to teh D90 (DH agreed ) and it would AF with that body.

If I was to get this lens, it would be something I would probably only use for full daylight, around the zoo...around a park, etc. I looked up lots of photos taken with it online (quite a few at 300mm handheld) and they look clear to me, but I'm just worried I'm going to get it and everything will look like garbage.

Worst case scenario...I wasted $75, best case scenario I end up with an extra 100mm of reach and love it for $75. Hmmmmm.

 

[jann1033]

i have a 7-200 non IS lens and as well as more "shake" than usual. i find a monopod helps a good bit so if i had IS it would help since it basically is like using a monopod i think...but the monopod is way cheaper for $75, even if you spent 35 for a monopod, you still have the mono to use it other circumstances
i have read anything over 200 you may need some support in some cases, i know i would for sure. bright light would help lessen that need but i personally probably would still need it( but then again sometimes i can't hold a magazine steady enough to read it either)

 

[annnewjerz]

i have a 7-200 non IS lens and as well as more "shake" than usual. i find a monopod helps a good bit so if i had IS it would help since it basically is like using a monopod i think...but the monopod is way cheaper for $75, even if you spent 35 for a monopod, you still have the mono to use it other circumstances
i have read anything over 200 you may need some support in some cases, i know i would for sure. bright light would help lessen that need but i personally probably would still need it( but then again sometimes i can't hold a magazine steady enough to read it either)

Your responses crack me up sometimes. That's good to know. I was actually considering getting a monopod regardless (I believe you suggested one) just to see if it helps get any sharper images. I have pretty steady hands, my problem is not taking the time to really stand still and carefully take a shot. Sometimes I just hold it up and fire one off and keep moving. Maybe I'll have to swing by the store tonight to see if they've still got it and see if they'll let me mount it and take a few sample pics.

 

[handicap18]

The number one reason I purchased the 70-300mm VR lens was because of the camera shake. Though they are not "big" lenses, they do get pretty long when fully extended and that certainly adds to the off balance and can create camera shake.

I used a non-VR lens at that range for 15+ years, so no, VR is not necessary, but it is a HUGE help. During the spring and summer I take LOTS of baseball pictures. The VR is a HUGE help. I'll use the 70-300mm VR until I get motion blur, then I'll switch to the 70-210mm f/4 lens, but with that lens I have to use either a monopod or prop myself up against a fence or something to keep the lens still.

Even at a zoo during the day, you'll get lots of shade area so you might not always be able to get real fast shutter speeds at the long end of a 70-300mm lens, especially when maxed out at f/5.6. The VR certainly helps.

IMO, it was worth the extra few hundred dollars. Plus this specific lens (70-300mm VR) is VERY sharp for its category. Its not 70-200mm f/2.8 sharp, but compared to other 70-300mm lenses, its probably the best.

 

[MICKEY88]

The number one reason I purchased the 70-300mm VR lens was because of the camera shake. Though they are not "big" lenses, they do get pretty long when fully extended and that certainly adds to the off balance and can create camera shake.

.

you can counter that problem by moving your left hand outwards towards the center of the lens,,,finding the balance point...rather than keeping your left hand back by the camera body

 

[boBQuincy]

Get an inexpensive laser pointer (or borrow one) and tape it to a long lens. Aim it at a point 20'to 30' away (a light switch on the wall will do), zoom all the way out, and try to hold it steady.
Unless you have no heartbeat or are a Jedi, the laser spot is going to move around quite a bit.

If this is too much trouble, hold your hand out like you have a camera and point your finger at the light switch. Watch how much it moves around.
Now try it with a monopod.

VR makes a big difference, as does a monopod. I try to use one or the other (sometimes both) at every opportunity, the difference in sharpness is worth it (and I am pretty steady but it still makes a big difference).

 

[annnewjerz]

Get an inexpensive laser pointer (or borrow one) and tape it to a long lens. Aim it at a point 20'to 30' away (a light switch on the wall will do), zoom all the way out, and try to hold it steady.
Unless you have no heartbeat or are a Jedi, the laser spot is going to move around quite a bit.

You caught me. I don't even have to pick up the laser pointer, I use my Jedi mind powers to lift it up and point it for me.

That being said, you said you always either use a monopod or IS and sometimes both. I have the 18-200VR which I like a lot but there is the VERY rare occassion when I wish I had something longer.

There are so many other lenses I would prefer to spend a larger quantity of money on so I'm not keen on the idea of spending $500 on a lens just to get VR when I don't plan on using it all that much. Just wanted to find a budget telephoto lens that was a little longer than what I have right now and still get a decent quality image with a monopod.

 

[Steve's Girl]

You caught me. I don't even have to pick up the laser pointer, I use my Jedi mind powers to lift it up and point it for me.

That being said, you said you always either use a monopod or IS and sometimes both. I have the 18-200VR which I like a lot but there is the VERY rare occassion when I wish I had something longer.

There are so many other lenses I would prefer to spend a larger quantity of money on so I'm not keen on the idea of spending $500 on a lens just to get VR when I don't plan on using it all that much. Just wanted to find a budget telephoto lens that was a little longer than what I have right now and still get a decent quality image with a monopod.

Personally, I don't find the difference between 200mm and 300mm to be that great. If you are using a lower ISO, you can crop. That is a little more difficult with higher ISO photos due to the noise issue.

 

[boBQuincy]

VR? Monopod? A Jedi craves not these things.

I wanted something longer than my 70-200 so I bought Canon's 1.4x extender. It gives up very little in sharpness but I still don't use it much because I have found when I think I need a 300 I really need a 400. I might buy a 400 except I don't want to carry it.

That leaves us with the 70-200 again, and lots of cropping. It doesn't work too badly if I don't need a large print.

Here is one with the 70-200 (no VR) & 1.4x combo, and of course a monopod:

 

[annnewjerz]

Here is one with the 70-200 (no VR) & 1.4x combo, and of course a monopod:

Hmmmm, so now I just need to go from convincing DH that I need a monopod and $100 used lens to a $1600 lens and a monopod. Easy as pie!!
Maybe I'll just stick to trying to get the D90 for now and save the extra zoom for another time.

 

[boBQuincy]

Hmmmm, so now I just need to go from convincing DH that I need a monopod and $100 used lens to a $1600 lens and a monopod. Easy as pie!!
Maybe I'll just stick to trying to get the D90 for now and save the extra zoom for another time.

$1600?!!! Not me! I have the "low end" 70-200 f/4 L, at about $600. The 1.4x is about $280. The monopod? About $15 in parts and a little assembly work.

"low end" boB

 

[annnewjerz]

$1600?!!! Not me! I have the "low end" 70-200 f/4 L, at about $600. The 1.4x is about $280. The monopod? About $15 in parts and a little assembly work.

"low end" boB

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have a 70-200 f/4 So I guess there actually are some times when I wish I had a Canon

 

[topdog]

I know this is not Disney relate image but I shot this with a 300mm f4 non VR handheld. This lens is about 15 years old.

 

[annnewjerz]

I know this is not Disney relate image but I shot this with a 300mm f4 non VR handheld. This lens is about 15 years old.

No need to be Disney related. Very nice, so I guess it is possible to get a clear shot without VR. The only issue with this "bargain" 70-300 lens is that it is maximum f/5.6 at 300mm, so I may not be able to get as fast a shutter speed as you have in that photo (although I can't tell because I didn't look at the EXIF).

Thanks again for the shot, definitely reassuring!

 

[topdog]

The shutter speed for this shot is 1/160 & f/13.0. Although this is a prime lens and it is a very sharp lens. Faster glass do makes a different.

 

[topdog]

Here is another shot, hand held also.
Same lens. 1/160s f/14.0

 

[jann1033]

yeah the 1.4teleconverter settles the "do i need to use a monopod" ? for sure...i have the tamron which is about low 100 for canon a little more for nikon..happy with the sharpness though although you do lose a little of the light capability with it, the tamron you can use with a f4 or less lens, not sure if the nikon tamron version is the same or not for that but i'm guessing it might not work on the lens you are looking at