To VR or Not To VR (Tamron lens vs. Nikkor)

[luxuryreplica]

So yesterday I called Calumet Camera and was told that I could get the Nikon 18-200mm lens for $269.00. Amazed, I rushed to the store only to find that it was over $600 and the salesman made a mistake.

Since I had been looking at this lens for months, I deliberated and finally decided to buy the Tamron 18-200mm which was half the price, but does not feature the VR (Vibration reduction) and focuses slower.

I've spent a long time mulling over this lens, which I will find incredibly useful for shooting runway shows during fashion week. ( I previously either rented a Nikon 70-200mm or switched between my Nikon 35-80mm and a 100-300mm lens) I realized that I missed out on a few shots by having to switch lenses, and having this one would enable me to get both the wide and tele ones I need in one lens, as well as enable me to be more mobile without carrying too much equipment. 90% of the time, I do not use a tripod when I shoot these shows. I am photographing moving subjects frequently ( models walking on the runway )

I never had VR on either lens (the above two I own) and the majority of them came out very crisp. So I was trying to justify paying nearly double for these other features. I used a D70 in the past and just recently purchased a D90.

I've read many other forums about this and most say the Nikon is the way to go. ( Build quality, faster focus and VR the factors that stand out ) I know there are many variables, pros and cons, etc.

But If I could just get a few educated opinions on whether or not I should return the lens while I still can and get the Nikon.

Is this VR feature something that makes a huge difference?
Do you recommend I spend the extra money and invest in the Nikkor lens?

The salesman told me he would hold the Nikon for me if I changed my mind. I also hear rumors Nikon is going to raise prices for their lenses in February.
I appreciate the advice, as I know there are many talented and educated photographers on this forum.

more info on both lenses-Nikon (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-ED-IF-Zoom-Nikkor/dp/B000BY52NU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1232894408&sr=8-1)
And the Tamron (http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Digital/dp/B0015U95SW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1232894509&sr=1-1)

[Yonzie]

Use the 38-80 on the D70 and the 100-300 on the D90?
Alternately, get the cheap lens and a monopod.

[PB PM]

VR is useful at the long end if you are shooting without a tripod. Frankly shooting at 200-300mm without a tripod requires fast shutter speeds, which with lower end lenses (F5.6 or higher on the long end) handheld isn't going to produce sharp images. I would recommend putting your money into a good tripod, rather than a VR lens.

[nikstar101]

I recently got a VR Canon Lens (Imagine Stabiliser as they call it), and i find it really useful. But it really depends on how you are going to use the lens. Or example it is on my 17-55mm 2.8 f lens. I use as an everyday lens therefore i don't particularly want to be carrying around a tripod all day for for that one shot. And now that i have it i think i would ensure that any other lens has it too (mainly because i don't like carrying stuff around).

But if you are going to use the lens for a specific task, such as fashion shots then you can bring any extra equipment or set the camera up for that environment. And there is no need for a VR lens. I imagine that the models will be well lit (even if you are indoors) so you can probably use a fast shutter speed. And you are going to have the person in focus at all times, its not as if they are going to jump out on you when your not ready.

If you are going to use it for the holiday snaps and everything else in your life, then i would seriously think about a VR lens as there is nothing worse than thinking you have caught the most beautiful image ever, to find that it is blurry as hell when you get home.

Although i am not really super talented or educated about photography, i just enjoy taking photos and that is my view

[luxuryreplica]

Thanks everyone for your responses. To clarify, I had to sell my d70 to put the money toward the d90. So I only have one DSLR.

As far as this lens goes, I need it for fashion shows in Bryant Park, where there is controlled lighting, however, the models are walking pretty fast and I shoot at shutter priority at 125 or 200 and get pretty good shots without a tripod. I usually sit up front on the floor, where they don't allow tripods, only in the riser sections. Usually the more established photographers get the good spots before they let in others. I prefer the floor, because this way I can also get out of the show before the crowds leave and enables me to secure a decent spot at the next show. So primarilly this lens is for the instances where I shoot runway shows of moving models. That's where my concern comes with the VR and lack of a tripod.
I have used a monopod before, but I feel it inhibits the angles of the shots I want to take, alternating between landscape and portrait, and zooming in on details.
Additionally it would function as a "travel" lens ( so I needn't bring additional equipment when I go mountain climbing, etc.)

I'm just a little apprehensive about this purchase and I am wondering if I made the right choice. It's just the VR function that the salesman described didn't seem to warrant the extra money. If it makes a huge difference, I may reconsider and take it back on Tuesday, it's just the cost is so high and it's difficult to justify such an expensive lens.

Again I appreciate everyone's input. Thanks so much.

[PB PM]

VR only helps with camera shake, not subject movement. With shots in the telephoto range (85mm+) you'll want faster shutters speeds for moving subjects, more like 1/250 or faster. The basic rule of thumb, for getting sharp hand held shots is, never use a shutter speed slower than the focal length (remember that the D90 has the 1.5x crop) so at 200mm, thats equal to 300mm, so I wouldn't use a shutter speed slower than 1/300s.

[Swox]

If your primary concern is shooting fashion, I'd vote for the tripod too. I'd prefer a bigger aperture over VR because your main concern would be stopping action, and obviously VR doesn't help with that at all. Because you don't have to move that much (I'm guessing), you should be able to set one up and just shoot.

I'd also advise (because you didn't ask ;) ) that you spend more money on lenses than camera bodies - they have a lot more to do with your image quality than the body does.

[luxuryreplica]

Thanks everyone for your responses. I appreciate your input and advice.

[Dorian Gray]

I never had VR on either lens (the above two I own) and the majority of them came out very crisp.
Question answered then! :)

Is this VR feature something that makes a huge difference?
Roughly speaking, it gains you about two stops of handhold-ability. So if you can get away with a shutter speed of 1/125 without VR, then with VR you might get the same sharpness at 1/30. But of course the usefulness of that is offset by the fact that anything that moves (i.e. people) will be blurred.

Do you recommend I spend the extra money and invest in the Nikkor lens?
I personally wouldn't pay twice the price for VR. Image stabilisation is useful for just about everything except people photography of any kind.

I also hear rumors Nikon is going to raise prices for their lenses in February.
I suspect all Japanese cameras and lenses will go up in price in the near future. The yen is just too strong against other currencies to sustain the current prices.

For what it's worth, Sigma (and maybe Tokina?) make 50-150 mm f/2.8 zooms for crop-sensor cameras. You'd be giving up a lot of range but you might get sharper pics due to the larger aperture and better optics. Whether that would matter is another thing though.

[luxuryreplica]

All good Points. Thanks Dorian. I feel better about my purchase now.