18-200mm VR ??

[brentsky]

Hi all,

This morning i was pleased to see my nikkor 18-200mm VR lens arrived. Keen to have a play of the VR, I took a few snaps, but honestly don't see any difference from a non-VR lens.. There is much blur, and Im not sure what's happening! I'm slightly frustrated. I'd be grateful for your comments - take a look at some of the photos.

Brent

[Marvin]

The first looks like motion blur. What settings are you using? Not sure what you were expecting but VR isn't some amazing device that lets you hand hold for very long exposures, it just helps when the exposures are a bit longer. I don't really know the technical terms or numbers.

[phillipb]

According to your exif in the first picture, the shutter speed was almost 1 sec. No amount of VR is going to give you that sort of hand holding ability.

[Oneputt]

VR is not a panacea for an unsteady hand. Having owned this lens I found it superb on a DX camera. The VR will let you use it in conditions which were marginal otherwise, however it will not make any difference in really poor conditions.

[StarForge]

As I don't have a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, I use the 18-200mm VR II all the time and when indoors with VR active.

This is a 1/33 shot at 170mm with VR on.

[Mr Darcy]

The rule of thumb that I have always used (for non-VR lenses) is handheld is usually safe at 1/lens length in seconds. Thus a 200mm lens should ideally not be hand held at less than 1/200 and a 100mm lens at 1/100. Good technique and/or luck can give better figures, but these are not to be relied on.
VR is claimed to improve things by 2-3 stops so that would mean you should be able to hand hold at 1/50 to 1/25. Say 1/30 for convenience. and 100mm at about 1/10
Now your first photo is 95mm. Close enough to 100mm so the slowest you should be hand holding is about 1/10 Sec. You were actually using ~1Sec: Way too slow
Your second was 200mm so you should be no slower than 1/30. You were at 1/15. Too slow, but within possible tolerances if your technique was good. This photo is way better than the first, but still a little off. About what I would expect.

The 18-200 is capable of excellent results in low light, as demonstrated by StarForge, but you need to learn how to use it to achieve this.
Go out and practice.

[brentsky]

The rule of thumb that I have always used (for non-VR lenses) is handheld is usually safe at 1/lens length in seconds. Thus a 200mm lens should ideally not be hand held at less than 1/200 and a 100mm lens at 1/100. Good technique and/or luck can give better figures, but these are not to be relied on.
VR is claimed to improve things by 2-3 stops so that would mean you should be able to hand hold at 1/50 to 1/25. Say 1/30 for convenience. and 100mm at about 1/10
Now your first photo is 95mm. Close enough to 100mm so the slowest you should be hand holding is about 1/10 Sec. You were actually using ~1Sec: Way too slow
Your second was 200mm so you should be no slower than 1/30. You were at 1/15. Too slow, but within possible tolerances if your technique was good. This photo is way better than the first, but still a little off. About what I would expect.

The 18-200 is capable of excellent results in low light, as demonstrated by StarForge, but you need to learn how to use it to achieve this.
Go out and practice.

thanks to all for the replys.. espec to mr darcy.. ill have another play around with it and post some shots

[Oneputt]

I just realised that you used the 18-200VR not the 70-200VR (which I have owned) The 18-200 has always in my opinion been a little soft.

[RDW]

When I got my 18-200VR I had a cheap daylight filter attached and got some spurious results that didn't seem to add up. I set up a controlled test with filter on and filter off and sure enough, the cheap filter was sending the VR crazy, particulary at the very long end of the zoom. Now I have an expensive drinks coaster and the VR works fine.

[brentsky]

When I got my 18-200VR I had a cheap daylight filter attached and got some spurious results that didn't seem to add up. I set up a controlled test with filter on and filter off and sure enough, the cheap filter was sending the VR crazy, particulary at the very long end of the zoom. Now I have an expensive drinks coaster and the VR works fine.

interesting.. would a polarizer have an effect on this?

[team piggy]

I have used a few different ND and polarizers on this lens and have found no issues.

[biggerry]

interesting.. would a polarizer have an effect on this?

I have a Hoya Circ Pol which lives on my 18-200mm most of the time for outside stuff, I have not experienced any noticeable issues. I think if you stick with a decent quality one there should not be to many issues, I am open to correction here tho.

[brentsky]

interesting.. would a polarizer have an effect on this?

I have a Hoya Circ Pol which lives on my 18-200mm most of the time for outside stuff, I have not experienced any noticeable issues. I think if you stick with a decent quality one there should not be to many issues, I am open to correction here tho.

I have exactly the same on my lens.. I'd be interested to see if anyone experiences any issues with it..

[mickeyjuice]

interesting.. would a polarizer have an effect on this?

Polarisers eat light, so some of your stop-advantage will automatically go there.