«

Can someone please tell me your experience using a VR lens, vs a
regular lens, and how likely you would be to recommend the upgrade?
I'm looking to buy an 80-200 2.8 nikkor af ed lens; one I can get on a
great discount for about $515 because it was used as a Demo lens, but
is in excellent cond. The other lens has the VR feature, from ritz,
for $750.

Should I just fork it over, or can I save my pennies?

"cassia" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Can someone please tell me your experience using a VR lens, vs a
> regular lens, and how likely you would be to recommend the upgrade?
> I'm looking to buy an 80-200 2.8 nikkor af ed lens; one I can get on a
> great discount for about $515 because it was used as a Demo lens, but
> is in excellent cond. The other lens has the VR feature, from ritz,
> for $750.
>
> Should I just fork it over, or can I save my pennies?
>

Only you can decide that. If you have a problem holding the camera still (I
have a nerve disorder that makes this impossible) then a stabilized lens
would help you. If you don't end up with lot of blurry shots then you are
probably fine without. Outside of this use stabilized lenses can let you
shoot slower shutter speeds without needing a tripod or monopod. So if you
shoot like 1/30 of second and wouldn't like to do away with a tripod then a
stabilized lens will help assuming that you are capable of holding the
camera very still yourself. It can't compensate for an unsteady photographer
and a slow shutter speed. It can do one or the other. A stabilized lens will
do nothing for subject movement like a flower blowing in the wind or a fast
moving dog or something like that. For that you need a fast shutter speed if
you want to stop the action and have no subject blur.

=(

On Apr 2, 10:24 pm, "cassia" <cassiaden...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can someone please tell me your experience using a VR lens, vs a
> regular lens, and how likely you would be to recommend the upgrade?
> I'm looking to buy an 80-200 2.8 nikkor af ed lens; one I can get on a
> great discount for about $515 because it was used as a Demo lens, but
> is in excellent cond. The other lens has the VR feature, from ritz,
> for $750.
>
> Should I just fork it over, or can I save my pennies?

Why not look at the 55-200vr that may be available locally if not
today sometime very soon for about half of the price? Unless you are
looking for something paticular I think this would be a good sub for
the 80-200.

Doug

In article < .com>,
cassia <> wrote:

> Can someone please tell me your experience using a VR lens, vs a
> regular lens, and how likely you would be to recommend the upgrade?
> I'm looking to buy an 80-200 2.8 nikkor af ed lens; one I can get on a
> great discount for about $515 because it was used as a Demo lens, but
> is in excellent cond. The other lens has the VR feature, from ritz,
> for $750.
>
> Should I just fork it over, or can I save my pennies?

VR or IS (I have Canon, so my lenses say IS, but it's the same basic
thing), if you can, get the stablilized lens.

Go down to your local camera store, ask to put one on your camera, turn
it on, and watch the results through the lens as you activate it/focus
with the shutter button. You can WATCH the image in the viewfinder
"lock" into place. It's amazing.

You'll buy the stabilized one.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

"cassia" <> writes:
> I'm looking to buy an 80-200 2.8 nikkor af ed lens; one I can get on a
> great discount for about $515 because it was used as a Demo lens, but
> is in excellent cond. The other lens has the VR feature, from ritz,
> for $750.

If you mean the 70-200/2.8 VR, I don't think Ritz is selling it for
$750. If you mean something like the 18-200, it's two stops slower
than the 80-200 and therefore not really comparable.

I think I'm saving my pennies for the 70-200/2.8 VR.

cassia wrote:
> Can someone please tell me your experience using a VR lens, vs a
> regular lens, and how likely you would be to recommend the upgrade?
> I'm looking to buy an 80-200 2.8 nikkor af ed lens; one I can get on a
> great discount for about $515 because it was used as a Demo lens, but
> is in excellent cond. The other lens has the VR feature, from ritz,
> for $750.
>
> Should I just fork it over, or can I save my pennies?
>
I bought a camera with image stabilization because I often
take photos in dim light where I can't use a tripod. Does
the VR lens meet a need you have?

In article <>, Marvin
<> wrote:

> cassia wrote:
> > Can someone please tell me your experience using a VR lens, vs a
> > regular lens, and how likely you would be to recommend the upgrade?
> > I'm looking to buy an 80-200 2.8 nikkor af ed lens; one I can get on a
> > great discount for about $515 because it was used as a Demo lens, but
> > is in excellent cond. The other lens has the VR feature, from ritz,
> > for $750.
> >
> > Should I just fork it over, or can I save my pennies?
> >
> I bought a camera with image stabilization because I often
> take photos in dim light where I can't use a tripod. Does
> the VR lens meet a need you have?

More importantly - does it meed a need that you probably *will*
have?... remember, your needs WILL probably grow, and (IMO) you are
better off only buying once instead of buying, selling, and re-buying.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

On 2 Apr 2007 19:24:25 -0700, "cassia" <> wrote:

>Can someone please tell me your experience using a VR lens, vs a
>regular lens, and how likely you would be to recommend the upgrade?
>I'm looking to buy an 80-200 2.8 nikkor af ed lens; one I can get on a
>great discount for about $515 because it was used as a Demo lens, but
>is in excellent cond. The other lens has the VR feature, from ritz,
>for $750.
>
>Should I just fork it over, or can I save my pennies?

Depends what you want it for. It is a decent everyday lens and the VR
means you can easily use it at the long end handheld with decent
light.

If you want to shoot moving subjects e.g. sports you're probably
better served by a fast standard or telephoto zoom.