I recently purchased a nikon d40( a few days ago, first DSLR) and though the 18-55mm lens is ok, I need more zoom. I saw that the 55-200mm lens is a good choice for someone not looking to spend much. I looked through b&h and some other sites and saw nikon has a non-VR version and a VR. I then searched craigslist and came across 2 steals(both under $105) on the non-VR version.

I was wondering if the VR is very necessary and should I spend the extra money on it or should I just purchase the non-VR version?

If anyone has any pictures that have been taken with the non-VR version(if possible, comparison to VR version), please post, preferably with the d40 lol but anything works.

Thanks

They're pretty comparable, but the VR is definitely worth it, especially on a zoom lens :)

Yup! If the budget allows it go for the VR

I do have that much but I really don't want to spend it lol. I can pick up a good monopod or tripod for under $50(friend works at penn camera) and I was wondering if the non-VR version used with a monopod/tripod be close to the same and worth it to the VR version?

I do have that much but I really don't want to spend it lol. I can pick up a good monopod or tripod for under $50(friend works at penn camera) and I was wondering if the non-VR version used with a monopod/tripod be close to the same and worth it to the VR version?

Lol the 55-200 with a Tripod is FAR BETTER than a handheld VR lens. Shooting on the tripod lets you use longer shutter speeds so you can shoot at f/8-f/11 where the lens is sharpest while VR won't give you enough shake reduction to stop down that far.

Lol the 55-200 with a Tripod is FAR BETTER than a handheld VR lens. Shooting on the tripod lets you use longer shutter speeds so you can shoot at f/8-f/11 where the lens is sharpest while VR won't give you enough shake reduction to stop down that far.


while trying to use a tripod for 95% of the shots i take woudl take to long and id miss it, OR tripods jsut don't contort and twist to the ground/terrain to work for the shots i take. VR def has its purpose, it just depends on how you shoot.

while trying to use a tripod for 95% of the shots i take woudl take to long and id miss it, OR tripods jsut don't contort and twist to the ground/terrain to work for the shots i take. VR def has its purpose, it just depends on how you shoot.

It depends on the shooting you do. For landscape shots the tripod definitely helps. When I'm shooting my 300mm I usually use a monopod and then the VR is very helpful. Depends on your situation. The 55-200 tends to be a lens you would use on the shorter end (vs. for example the 70-200) so I feel that VR is not really too much of a nescessity.

Lol the 55-200 with a Tripod is FAR BETTER than a handheld VR lens...
...while VR won't give you enough shake reduction to stop down that far.


I think this statement is a bit too generalized. It depends on the light conditions and one's skill level and technique. I see plently of people using tripods with poor technique and, conversely, a lot of people shooting hand-held with good techique.

illxpanda, if you can get the VR version I highly recommend it. It has changed my photography like no other single advancement (except for digital imaging). I shoot with a 300mm stabilized lens all the time - routinely with a 2x teleconverter and hand-held at f/11.

The optical designs of the lenses are completely different. Nikon's MTF charts show the VR version has a slight overall resolution advantage and is more consistent across the frame.