OK, here is a shot, 24-120 VR Nikkor at 38mm. Exposure f/4.0 at 1/10 second, ISO 3200. Camera on a garbage can to give some stability.

I doubt it could have been done as easily without the VR. Maybe sandbags, purse, or other firm support could have been used, but the other factor was this venue was highly dynamic requiring a lot of moving around to catch various aspects of the event.

^^^ of course you have to watch out with moving objects. That shouldn't be related to VR though. That should just be good shooting techniques. In that case you have to up the ISO or get more light and VR isn't going to save you there. I do think however it gives you more leeway to not have to adjust to the situation as much as without it...like having to up the ISO unless you really need the faster shutter speeds.

Hands down the biggest advantage of VR is being able to hand hold shots that you wouldn't normally be able to. In my example picture earlier in the post there is almost no way a non VR lens at 200 mm and 1/25 would turn out handheld. That said it does have its limits as several of the pictures I took of the elk were not fast enough shutter speeds and I got that blur you refer to.

Spy Black said:
>>Perhaps "lazy" was a wrong word to use, but regardless it takes more than a high shutter speed to shoot smoothly. How you brace the camera, how you press the shutter, how you breathe, how you THINK when the shot is taken all add up to smooth shooting that will allow you to shoot with even a lower shutter speed. VR takes that kind of consciousness away from a photographer and almost gives a false sense of security.

Years back I shot a rock concert in Madison Square with Kodachrome 25. Handheld. I did it for the challenge. Sure, I got a lot of bad shots, but I was also able to get sharp images while shooting at 1/15 sec with a 300mm f/4.5 by applying the techniques outlined above, et al. I did it to sharpen my shooting skills, and it worked. Quite well. When I shot with 125 Ektachrome under the same conditions it felt effortless.

A small beanbag is also an handy tool to have in your arsenal, even with VR. It will give you a good 2 stops extra if you're smart in your shooting techniques.

Don't overlook tried and tested techniques for getting good images under unfavorable conditions, they have proven themselves over time, and even in the VR age are still quite useful and will always give you a shooting advantage.

AMEN! I used to shoot the Nikkor f/4.5 300mm on an F body at 1/15 sec without a tripod. But there are many telephone poles with my camera impression in them as I would do all sorts of contortions and use anything, small rocks, sticks, wallet, jamed in between so I could press firmly at the correct angle. And then it was the breathe out, and squeeeeeeeze the release gently. Two elbows on the chest, carefully, are also very helpful. These techniques when applied WITH VR, result in even better resolution.

The risk with VR is that at slow shutter speeds the subjects move... as I have found so often. And asking the subject to be still, great if you want the Matthew Brady look, but not very spontaneous.

So, as to the question at hand, VR or not VR..... I think VR is just another advance which helps us to move toward the goal some of us have, and that is to have a small format photos with the technical quality of large format.

And kudos to you Spy Black, those Kodachromes still have the color while the thousands of Ektachromes I shot, well, the color is "blowing in the wind".

>>Roll that into "VR makes Lazy shooters", I don't believe that at all, but the old "rule of thumb" advice seems to have evaporated on proper technique and settings for tele shooting. Even with my 70-200vr I keep my Shutter to 1/180th or higher on DX. If I want it to be razor sharp every time I shoot with F/4 & 1/300.<<

Perhaps "lazy" was a wrong word to use, but regardless it takes more than a high shutter speed to shoot smoothly. How you brace the camera, how you press the shutter, how you breathe, how you THINK when the shot is taken all add up to smooth shooting that will allow you to shoot with even a lower shutter speed. VR takes that kind of consciousness away from a photographer and almost gives a false sense of security.

Years back I shot a rock concert in Madison Square with Kodachrome 25. Handheld. I did it for the challenge. Sure, I got a lot of bad shots, but I was also able to get sharp images while shooting at 1/15 sec with a 300mm f/4.5 by applying the techniques outlined above, et al. I did it to sharpen my shooting skills, and it worked. Quite well. When I shot with 125 Ektachrome under the same conditions it felt effortless.

A small beanbag is also an handy tool to have in your arsenal, even with VR. It will give you a good 2 stops extra if you're smart in your shooting techniques.

Don't overlook tried and tested techniques for getting good images under unfavorable conditions, they have proven themselves over time, and even in the VR age are still quite useful and will always give you a shooting advantage.

TaoTeJared said:

Roll that into "VR makes Lazy shooters", I don't believe that at all, but the old "rule of thumb" advice seems to have evaporated on proper technique and settings for tele shooting. Even with my 70-200vr I keep my Shutter to 1/180th or higher on DX. If I want it to be razor sharp every time I shoot with F/4 & 1/300.

Maybe not lazy, but.... I found out the other night I need to be very vigilant. I was shooting the 20mm f/2.8 on D90, ISO 1600, horrible lighting... and many had to be held overhead to get the shot. From the results which all thought were really great, I thought they were marginal and should have been a bit steadier. So, more "practice" for the old lady. I just need to remember to hold all the cameras steady and sqeeeeeee....zzzzzzzeeee...... the shutter release.

tcole1983 said:
I have to disagree. The 18-200 isn't the sharpest lens, but it isn't miserable...

As for the VR...I have never understood those people that seem to detest it...

+1
I constantly see people trying to shoot the 18-200, 70-300, 55-300, etc. at 1/50sec shutter and complain about sharpness. All of those lenses are sharp but you still have to stop down and keep shutter speeds almost equal to the length.

Roll that into "VR makes Lazy shooters", I don't believe that at all, but the old "rule of thumb" advice seems to have evaporated on proper technique and settings for tele shooting. Even with my 70-200vr I keep my Shutter to 1/180th or higher on DX. If I want it to be razor sharp every time I shoot with F/4 & 1/300.

Spy Black said:
VR is cool, but it can make you a lazy photographer. ;-) I make use of traditional stabilizing techniques in conjunction with VR to get shots you can't get with VR alone. You have to master traditional stabilizing techniques first, of course. I still have plenty of non-VR MF lenses to keep me on my toes, if you don't, practice shooting with VR off and get to be a smooth photographer without it. When the time comes when you want to grab a great shot at low ISO and low light, combine smooth shooting techniques with VR and you will be a very happy camper (or at least, photographer ;-).

I have to say I'm not a fan of the 18-200 Nikkor. That thing has miserable image quality across it's entire zoom range. Whenever you push a zoom range that far it's not surprising. Much better to break up the zoom range between two lenses. Not as convenient, but even the lowly 18-55mm & 55-200mm kit lenses have better image quality. I can't speak for the Tamron mentioned above, but considering it has an even longer zoom range than the 18-200 Nikkor, I would find it hard to believe it could have better image quality.

I have to disagree. The 18-200 isn't the sharpest lens, but it isn't miserable. I have taken the majority of my pictures with this lens and although it isn't as sharp as say my 105 F2.8, it is far from a horrible lens. For whatever sharpness it lacks it makes up for in versatility.

As for the VR...I have never understood those people that seem to detest it. Of course good shooting technique is always good to have and use, but that doesn't mean that VR is bad. I mean choosing identical lenses, one with VR and one without I can't see why you would pick without. It is a useful tool. Just because it is a technology based photography tool instead of a 100 year old tripod people seem to hate it. I just don't understand the reasoning behind people that are so elite that they can't see the usefulness of it. I have a tripod and I have a monopod, but I still shoot without them fairly often and VR is always nice to have in those situations. It has been tested time and time again to give people 3-4 stops better performance...who wouldn't want that???

"and was wandering if VR is a must or just a nice feature. This lense will mainly be used for video,"

VR is often not so nice for video, it can give a fuzzy picture when it tries to compensate for your movements, in this case i agree that a tripod is much better ...

Better to spend $50 on a monopod . It will turn not one but all of your lenses to VR .

VR is cool, but it can make you a lazy photographer. ;-) I make use of traditional stabilizing techniques in conjunction with VR to get shots you can't get with VR alone. You have to master traditional stabilizing techniques first, of course. I still have plenty of non-VR MF lenses to keep me on my toes, if you don't, practice shooting with VR off and get to be a smooth photographer without it. When the time comes when you want to grab a great shot at low ISO and low light, combine smooth shooting techniques with VR and you will be a very happy camper (or at least, photographer ;-).

I have to say I'm not a fan of the 18-200 Nikkor. That thing has miserable image quality across it's entire zoom range. Whenever you push a zoom range that far it's not surprising. Much better to break up the zoom range between two lenses. Not as convenient, but even the lowly 18-55mm & 55-200mm kit lenses have better image quality. I can't speak for the Tamron mentioned above, but considering it has an even longer zoom range than the 18-200 Nikkor, I would find it hard to believe it could have better image quality.

Wow, VR, this is an absolutely amazing tool. When in challenging light situations, the subject is not moving, one can get a shot when without VR there is no way without a stable platform. Also, in moving subjects when panning, VR helps to "Pin" the subject and keep it in focus, allowing some really nice pan effects which would require dozens more exposures to achieve without the VR. If the only use of the lens is on a stable platform and in a controlled setting, i.e., studio, then maybe not. But the lens will be very limited and if anything else such as above is anticipated, I think VR is the only way to go. An example... the AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED without VR vs. the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR, I chose the 16-35 and saved $700. Only one f/stop slower, but the 16-35 can be hand held down to 1/4 sec and the 17-35 to maybe 1/15th. Of course this is only with a bit of luck, ha, ha, ha.... as in multiple attempts when working down there.
So, good luck, and I wish you well and enjoy your new lens...

The 18-200 will cost you $800 and is very soft on the long end.
I replaced mine with the new Tamron 18-270 with PZ drive and VC. No focus issues and sharper images for around 60% of the cost.

Just wanted to share a recent example of a VR situation. There is no way this would have turned out without having VR on. There were several others that didn't turn out even with it.

Hand holding at 200mm in low light. D5000, 18-200 @ 200mm, F5.6, 1/25

The great thing about lens based VR is you can actually see it working. If you're unsure if you need it, a good way to check is to try the lens at its maximum focal length with and without the VR on. If you can see the difference it makes, you need it.

From what you want to shoot (although I don't shoot video), either lens sounds like a good one for you. I would get the Nikon version. If you can't afford the 18-200 then the 18-105 is a good option as well. I however...and it sounds like you are thinking of getting one of the third party lenses without the OS or VR and I wouldn't really recommend that. If you think you might shoot some portrait stuff the 18-105 (I have heard this is sharper than the 18-200) and a flash might be a pretty good setup.

VR isn't crucial. There are plenty of Nikon lenses without VR and everyone owns them and they all shoot great. VR makes a lens that much more versatile though and with the 18-200 I don't think it would be such an all in one lens if it didn't have it. I have mentioned it before in other posts, but VR really almost makes lenses foolproof. You don't realize it until you shoot a lens without it and see you were shooting super slow shutter speeds and still getting good results.

That said two of my lenses don't have it and two do. I think it is a worth while option if you are considering two lenses side by side...one that has it and one that doesn't. Especially the longer the lens the more useful it is. I think you would find it hard to shoot at 200 mm in anything but the best light without VR.

When I used a D90 I had the 18 -200, an excellent all rounder, VR essential. A friend had the Tamron, it was very slow to focus, after trying my Nikon he also changed to Nikon. That was 2 years ago He does wedding and still uses the Nikon 18- 200 on his D7000

Yes it is only 3.5 / 5.6 but with a higher ISO value and VR not an issue

VR vs No VR on the same lens - it is a no brainier - buy the VR.

both are slow (f/3.5-5.6), so you need vr when indoors or in deep shade with no tripod.

a better option would be buying a faster lens, but you gotta pay.

The VR is a great feature to have. I personally have the 18-200 and find it to be a great "all purpose" lens. There are two version of the 18-200; one has a "Red" VR logo and the other is "Gold." The Gold has the new Nikon VR II technology. So I would go with that one.

Did you get the D7000?

looking to buy an 15-105, or 18-200 lense at f3.5, and was wandering if VR is a must or just a nice feature. This lense will mainly be used for video, church event photos, action events, and just walking around stuff. Also, any suggestions on if a 3rd party lense is a good idea, or stick with Nikon.

Thanks in advance for the feedback!!! <><