Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

  1. #1

    Default Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    All About VR - Nikon's VR system explained

    I guess it should apply to Canon's IS too... and perhaps to Sony, pentax and oly...

    but at less for the later three u r not paying for VR lens...

  2. #2
    Senior Member ovaltinemilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Sin jia Po lah

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    I think it's very useful for long lens...shorter kit lens etc not really...
    RGB Metering & Focusing.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?


    but not must-have.

    you never know when you need to shoot a low shutter speed shot but can't use tripod.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    For me, yes. Every lens should have it. I can always choose to turn it off if the situation doesn't warrant it.


  5. #5
    Senior Member Diavonex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    VR enables photographers to take substantially sharper handheld pictures at slower shutter speeds than would otherwise be possible.

    VR provides the distinct advantage of being able to shoot more effectively in a much broader variety of challenging conditions.

    With VR you can take pictures at shutter speeds up to three stops slower without the image blur caused by camera shake at slow shutter speeds.

  6. #6
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    it is useful esp on longer ends.

  7. #7
    Moderator diver-hloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Somewhere North

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    If its comes 'free'.... example, you need a lens that is between 17-80 and there is only ONE version of the lens and it has VR/IS.... I don't really care if its long end or short end....

    The only difference is when they have 2 verison of the SAME lens - one with VR/IS, one without - then the buyer can decide

    Scuba & Father... For Life

  8. #8

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    My feeling that this excellent question is to be answered on a case-by-case basis, with due weight being given to each "parameter" in the equation for a camera-shake-free photo, especially:

    (a) type and quality of implementation - For example, speaking of in-the-lens implementations, today we see the feature implemented to varying degrees of usefulness, with the best being nearly transparent to the photographer, and the worst taking the form of a nearly ONE-second "jiggle" which is guaranteed to screw up your picture if you're used to CORRECT camera holding technique and happen to squeeze the shutter-release at the wrong time, i.e. during the "jiggle"!!! (The example which comes to mind is a recently popular consumer 17-50 "VC" - my opinion is that for this particular lense, the only "Control" is whether you can hold off on the shutter release until the blasted image "settles down", at which point you can finally get a nice sharp, good-quality, shake-free image! STRESSFUL!)

    (b) experience and preference of the photographer - For those stepping up from hold-at-arm's-length-and-shoot digital cameras, they're likely to have already gotten a totally self-destructive way of holding a DSLR or SLR, and that is a hard habit to break. For them, VR or IS or VC can be a lifesaver, and therefore they NEED it; for the photographer with a couple of decades or more of shooting SLRs successfully, VR is not a necessity except as a nice-to-have for longer focal lengths;

    (c) other factors such as the age of the photographer and steadiness of his/her hands, shooting conditions (I dare you to scoff at VR when you've just trekked through rough terrain for a few hours, and are precariously dangling off a rope ladder and simply MUST have that shot!), and of course personal taste. VR usually also adds some measurable weight and diameter to a similar lense without VR, and this might become an issue when planning trips, too.

    So you see, the "need" for VR has to be evaluated in every situation very carefully, the final judgment being based on whether or not it helps or hinders you in your quest for making a good image.
    Last edited by nofocus; 1st May 2010 at 09:32 AM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    Isn't VR only as useful as how strong the vibration is? If your hands are notoriously not stable, the VR is too weak to do anything regardless. I had that problem with not just with my Panasonic GF-1, but also my older Canon PnS cam!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Upper Bukit Timah

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    My opinion is that unless you're perpetually shooting off the top of a tripod, it's better to have a less with VR, IS, VC, or whatever other name the manufacturers like to use. It's always better to have the luxury of choice than to be out with a lens that doesn't have this feature, and then regretting and wishing you had bought the other version of it.

    This is assuming IQ is the same, which from forum reviews, can't really be said of the Tamron 17-50 VC and non-VC versions.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    big tree town

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    yes. short or long or watever. if i don't want it i can always switch it off.
    cameras are not made of tofu

  12. #12

    Default Re: Do you really need Vibration Reduction?

    hi guys

    tks for all the replies..

    pls do read the article in the first post... especially for nikon users... but i guess it is the same for Canon users too..

    It tells you when you should turn it on, and when it should be turned off...

    i'm closing this thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts