I don't see why not, it's only $100 ish.
should i get a non-vr 55-200mm??
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Quote:
The non-VR model has different elements, it's not about the VR part, we just say that to classify the lenses.
VR doesn't make a difference in image quality until you need it, which would be at about 1/200 or slower at 200mm and 1/50-1/60 at 55mm.
Go take a shot at 200mm, at 1/60 of a second without VR and then with it on. Be sure to shoot these handheld, and then post 'em here.
Originally Posted by BlankThis I'm with Ryan on this. I got a deal with my camera that I got the 55-200 VR for $50 extra with the camera. I have found VERY little difference between picture quality with or with-out VR on... ~B~ |
VR doesn't make a difference in image quality until you need it, which would be at about 1/200 or slower at 200mm and 1/50-1/60 at 55mm.
Go take a shot at 200mm, at 1/60 of a second without VR and then with it on. Be sure to shoot these handheld, and then post 'em here.
4
Quote:
With the Non-Vr Nikkor 55-200mm @ 200mm
![]()
![]()
![]()
Originally Posted by iandroo888 *waits for the pictures* i wanna kno ! id expect to be taking 200mm shots sometimes so i wanna c difference ! |
Quote:
Badly.
Originally Posted by iandroo888 noticed all pictures have natural lighting. how would a non-vr lens do, in lets say a concert environment from side bleacher seats? limited lighting. lots of movement. |
2
Here's an example, both are at 1/10", 200mm, f/8, ISO 6400. Guess which one has VR on.
![]()
![]()
Quote:
lol. thats the problem. never know how close i can get to the stage. xD closest i can get is probably the first few rows either floor seats or the first set of bleachers to the side of the stage where its about the same height as the stage..
Originally Posted by tK FuRY Depends on working distance, you might be able to get away with anything f/2.8 and bump up the ISO a lot. If you can get closer, something faster would definitely be worth it. |
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
