Is VR really useful?

[Raskill]

Just a small question. Is VR really useful for motorsports?

There is an opinion on another site that the IS in Canon lenses is useless at shutter speeds greatr than 1/250. Is this right?

If so, does the same apply to Nikkor? I mean, surely it's bascially the same technology.

Curious to know what you folk reckon.

Cheers.

[Mal]

Gee now I understand why you sold me your VR!!!!!





Not that I have ever been to a motor race, or ever plan on going to one!

[Yi-P]

Not unless you always go around places or locations which involves no tripod/monopod carrying, or you be doing plenty of sports included shots under limited lights.

Somewhere like going out for motorsports, mountain hikes (extreme excercise with weight restrictions), or concerts.

Then if not, a tripod is always ten times better than current VR/IS systems.

[Bob G]

It will gain you a couple of stops.

This should enable you to calculate its usefulness for any particular circumstance required

Probably telling you something you already know

Bob G

[jethro]

VR has saved my arse on many occasions. 70-200 with VR is a must. If you can tell me someone who is not happy with VR Ill be surprised.
Anyone who says differently is either a dickhead or hard to please
Jethro

[wendellt]

in runway photography

most of the esablished runway photographers both Nikon and Canon turn off vr and IS
they are always shooting at 1/250 or more dependign on ISO

at 200mm 1/250 will give you a stabel image

after a few discussions the other photogs told me that IS or VR slows down the performance of the lens and before VR people got rock steady shots just by using an appropriate shutter speed

also vr fights with the monopod so if it's on you get some of the image sharp but the face

but in low light where you need to go under 1/250 it saves your ass
once i shot a show at 1/60 models powering down the runway with viscious intent and the lights were low, VR managed to get me a decent shot

[jethro]

Wendlt you are entirely correct for static shots. Sport has it merits and I should have exposed my usage of VR. I agree that iso has more of a bearing with your applications which I envy to a massive degree. VR has its applications mainly sporting or fast handheld shots. Correct me if im wrong.
Jethro

[wendellt]

Wendlt you are entirely correct for static shots. Sport has it merits and I should have exposed my usage of VR. I agree that iso has more of a bearing with your applications which I envy to a massive degree. VR has its applications mainly sporting or fast handheld shots. Correct me if im wrong.
Jethro

i think in sports it's just a matter of correct shutterspeed
inversely if you up the ISO the higher the shutterspeed you can use to capture that split second shot

if you were shooting at 1/500 or 1/1000 on a 200mm lens you would definitely negate the use of VR

but it could have an application at panning with slower shutterspeeds

it's good to have it anyway just in case your ass needs rescue

[Grev]

also vr fights with the monopod so if it's on you get some of the image sharp but the face

Well with a monopod, of course you'd turn VR off.

[wendellt]

also vr fights with the monopod so if it's on you get some of the image sharp but the face

Well with a monopod, of course you'd turn VR off.

in the 70-200VR manual it explicity stipulates to turn VR on when on a pod
but who reads manuals?

[birddog114]

in the 70-200VR manual it explicity stipulates to turn VR on when on a pod
but who reads manuals?

But it said here many times before, VR is always off when on the pod.

There's always pros & cons with VR or IS, depend on how and what the user's understanding is.

[nito]

wendelt, I thought VR should be off on a tripod but on when using a monopod.

Also, my opinion is VR is useless for faster shutter speeds where there is plenty of light.

[losfp]

Not sure about motorsports, but I think VR is great. If budget was not an issue, then I would pick the 70-200VR any time over any of the other telephoto lenses available. The question is though, is it really worth $1000 more than the 80-200? Not for me, photography is my hobby, so I went with the 80-200.

I think if you needed the performance for your job, then the VR is well worth the extra. It won't automatically be brilliant in all circumstances (ie: on a tripod etc), but it can offer you more options when the conditions are not as favourable.

[gstark]

Ooooooookkkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy ...


For those talking about runway shooting, let's revisit the original question ..

Is VR really useful for motorsports?

Maybe the Champ cars at mid-Ohio counts, but as a general rule ..

Similarly those talking about flash photography, IME, using flash for motorsports photography, other than rallies, is generally ineffective due to the large flash to subject distances involved.

Answering the question, yes, VR can be and is useful, but it depends upon where you are relative to the subject matter and what you're shooting.

Often, when shooting motorsports - and other fast moving activities - a faster shutterspeed is exactly what you do not want. Let's say that you want a panning image of a car going past, or perhaps you want to catch the rotation of the wheels.

What about shooting in cloudy, darker conditions, when faster shutter speeds are not as readily available?

By its very nature, most motorsports photography dictates that you will be using a longer lens of some sort, and that means that you will have a restriction on the theoretical slowest shutter speed you can use.

VR helps you to use your lenses at lower shutter speeds than the theoretical minimums, whilst helping to control camera shake. Thus you can still get those sorts of shots (I've described above) without the overhead of having to carry a pod of some sort.

So, yes, it's still useful, but it depends upon what and how you're shooting. It's jst one extra tool at your disposal.

[sejanus]

i remember 2-3 years ago at a racetracxk with the 70-200 VR i did a bunch of sharp handholds panned at 1/50th, no way in hell i would have gotten that without VR it rocks

[Raskill]

Thanks for the comments folks. I was curious to hear your opinions.

I think the VR is a great function on a lens, but like I asked, motorsport (or any fast action sport) wise, is it really useful at shutter speeds above 1/250. Surely anything above this will be frozen by sheer speed of the shutter.

I love the VR function for low light portraits, you can't go past it.

Would be interested to har more on your thoughts regarding panning and VR. Does it help. Should you use 'active' VR?

Thanks again.

[Matt. K]

VR is not much use for moving subjects in poor light. It's great for static subjects in poor light. And, as Gary has pointed out, it may be useful for panning. The trap with VR is that some folk will attempt to shoot moving subjects in poor light and think the VR will freeze the subject...which we all know does not work. VR can lull some folk into using sloppy technique when the light is low and so make their photography worse. It has to be used intelligently

[Justin]

Some interesting points above that relate to my recent experience - I was fortunate enough to be in Rome when Italy beat Germany last week - wow did that town go crazy.

But the point of the story is, to capture the flagwaving, hanging out of car windows whilst on two-wheels on a roundabout etc in the low-light (tungsten street) and quickly enough, I switched to the 50mm 1.4 from the 18-200VR. The VR lens just wouldnt focus fast enough or let enough light in to capture effective images, even at f3.5 and ISO1600.

And where it did focus, the exposure was so long that it made panning effectively useless - who needs to pan for 1/2s you can't see the subject and it's turned the corner by the time the exposure is complete.

So - in agreement here - VR is no substitute for a fast lens where the subject is moving

[Dug]

I have not had much experience with VR lenses but that has never stopped me from having a biased and one eyed opinion before

I would prefer to spend the money on a faster normal lens than pay for VR technology.

you can take the motion out of your hand with VR but not out of the subject matter.

VR does not give shallow DOF.

Again there are good points about it but after 30 years + if I cannot hold a lend steady then I will give the game away.

(I usually just use an extra slug of whiskey on my cornflakes to steady my hand in the morning )