Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Nikon Lenses (
-   -   Nikon lens, which is better, VR? (

samar Apr 13, 2010 3:18 PM

Nikon lens, which is better, VR?
I am a new DSLR user and have a Nikon D3000.
I can get a Nikon
AF-S DX Zoom 55-200 mm f/4-5.6G ED for 120$ with tax. Is it worth it to pay the extra money for a VR lens? I have the 18-55mm VR, and have never had anything different..I'll be using the longer lens for vacations, scenery and sports. Will I notice a large difference with the VR? Is it a large price different Thanks so much for your help :)

TCav Apr 13, 2010 4:30 PM

For sports, VR isn't important. You'll need to use fast shutter speeds to avoid motion blur due to subject movement, and that will take care of motion blur due to camera shake as well. But for vacations and scenery, it might be worth it.

In general, the VR lens is better than the non-VR lens, but 200mm isn't very long, especially for outdoor sports. You might be better off with the Nikon 70-300 VR.

tizeye Apr 24, 2010 11:31 PM

The VR is worth it and ultimately what I purchased it. Not necessarily because of the VR, but because of the lens itself. Here is a summary of a VR review that at SLRgear that compared it to alternatives.
"This is the original, non-VR version of this lens, intended as an inexpensive complement to the traditional 18-55mm kit lens bundled with many of Nikon's entry-level SLRs. It's less expensive and does OK for its price, but for the slight increase in price in the VR version you get image stabilization, significantly better sharpness, as well as a noticeable reduction in chromatic aberration and distortion."

Full review of both lens...

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:56 PM.