New Lens question

[mmeyer]

Hey guys and gals,

I'm contemplating a new lens. I currently have a cheap Tamron 70-300 lens and am considering upgrading a 70-300mm Vibration Resistant lens. I happens to be a Nikkor. I'm wondering if the $350 price difference beteen the VR and the non VR Nikkor is worth it. I take all kinds of photos but mostly nature. Is the VR going to be a good investment?

I'm hoping any of you SLR shooters can help.

Thanks

Mike

[finnbay]

You're going to get lots of differing opinions on this one. I never use it when I shoot sports, but have used in on occasion when I shoot wildlife. Check to see whether it works when you have the camera on a tripod - supposedly the Canon ones don't (which, if you have it on a tripod, should be a moot point I guess). Hand held is supposed to allow you to shoot 1 - 2 stops slower and still get decent images, which in the morning and evening may make a difference. I don't know that I'd go out of my way to buy it, but on those few times I've needed it, it's been nice to have.

[Steve Foss]

For nature work, the IS (VR for Nikon) has a solid place in my arsenal. I wouldn't be without it. There are many times I don't need it, but when I do, it's usually needed without warning, when an animal moves into deep shade or I'm shooting in very low light and those two extra stops make all the difference.

That black wolf shot I posted awhile back was shot handheld at 1/100, and if not for IS would not have been sharp enough to market. Just one example.

I don't know about Nikon, but the older generation Canon IS lenses did not sense it when they are on a tripod and it's best to turn those off when shooting from one. The newer Canon IS lenses do sense the tripod and de-active themselves when on one.

A great compromise between handheld and a tripod is a monopod. Much more portable, though of course less support offered, but a monopod and IS is a great combination.