Thinking about buying a Nikon D3200 for my wife/family for Christmas. There's two versions, a kit with an extra lens and bag for $496 on Amazon/Target/Best Buy or the camera with a VR lens for $450.

 

My question is, is the VR lens worth not getting the extra (non-VR) lens? What's the benefit, when does VR make a difference in your experience? I searched around already on Google and such, just wanted more opinions. Thanks!

My opinion would be go for the VR lens.

 

It will be of benefit in normal photography, & will also allow you to hand hold shots in lower light than would be possible without VR.

 

You can always pick up a bag later.

That's my thought, too. Plus a generic bag won't tip off thieves to what's inside.

 

Thanks for the reply

With vr you can go down to 1/30 shutter exposure (maybe even less if you have steady hands) without needing a tripod. If there is a video mode, it can also help enormously to make shots less jittery. As long as there are no other downsides (like the vr lens having a smaller widest aperature) then I think it would be worth having vr.

Go for VR! From my tests with 18-55 VR, I took stable hand held low light shots even at 1/10 and 1/5 (but rarely). You must stop breathing while taking those, but it will be worth it. You can never take stable shots with standard non-VR lens at 1/20, 1/15 or longer. You can at 1/30 but you must be steady as a rock.

I concur with the VR lens, but because it will give you sharper higher quality hand-held photographs.  All the discussion about slow shutter speeds is moot in my opinion. This camera provides ISO settings out to ISO 6400, plus an additional setting equivalent to ISO 12,800. Color quality and noise reduction at higher ISO settings had been achieved well before this 2012 vintage camera. So if you are in a low light situation please do not shoot with such a slow shutter speed. Instead bump up the ISO setting so that you are shooting at 1/60th or faster, or better yet find a method to introduce more light into the setting.  And the VR lens provides higher quality images at virtually all shutter speeds for hand-held shots.

VR is great, and most of the time light isn't great when you need to make a photo, especially indoors.

I have the Nikon D3100 with its kit lens (so you are going for a very similar combination), and VR is really helpful. With it I can take steady hand-held photos down to a shutter speed of 1/10 (and in a few cases down to 1/4), and it's a real life-saver in low-light conditions.

I concur with the VR lens, but because it will give you sharper higher quality hand-held photographs.  All the discussion about slow shutter speeds is moot in my opinion. This camera provides ISO settings out to ISO 6400, plus an additional setting equivalent to ISO 12,800. Color quality and noise reduction at higher ISO settings had been achieved well before this 2012 vintage camera. So if you are in a low light situation please do not shoot with such a slow shutter speed. Instead bump up the ISO setting so that you are shooting at 1/60th or faster, or better yet find a method to introduce more light into the setting.  And the VR lens provides higher quality images at virtually all shutter speeds for hand-held shots.

 

If you want to be an advance photographer, you will use RAW. And RAW is very prone to strong noise at higher ISO settings (over 800), even on newer generation entry level DSLRs. Try to take some RAW photos at ISO 3200 or 6400, and you will see how much noise reduction you must use to get rid of the noise, and in that case you will lose lot of details in the photos. I think only people that use these entry-level DSLRs to take some family reunion photos will use JPEGs, and therefore they will have a slight higher flexibility on ISO settings, since JPEG mode is using inbuilt noise reduction, and it will cost you a loss in image detail.

 

For us Lightroom (and other similiar photo manuipulation software) junkies, RAWs are mandatory, and with entry level DSLRs, hand held night shots are either taken at F1.8 with 35mm prime for example @ ISO 400/800, or at F3.5 with kit lens at ISO 400/800/1600 with VR.

I shoot both a D90 and a D50, both fitted with the 18-55mm VR lens. I have longer and shorter lenses, but that lens is my "go-to" workhorse. I suggest you go with the VR!

Another vote for the VR.  Really, you'll be glad you did in the long run.

 

Scott

If you want to be an advance photographer, you will use RAW. And RAW is very prone to strong noise at higher ISO settings (over 800), even on newer generation entry level DSLRs. Try to take some RAW photos at ISO 3200 or 6400, and you will see how much noise reduction you must use to get rid of the noise, and in that case you will lose lot of details in the photos. I think only people that use these entry-level DSLRs to take some family reunion photos will use JPEGs, and therefore they will have a slight higher flexibility on ISO settings, since JPEG mode is using inbuilt noise reduction, and it will cost you a loss in image detail.

 

For us Lightroom (and other similiar photo manuipulation software) junkies, RAWs are mandatory, and with entry level DSLRs, hand held night shots are either taken at F1.8 with 35mm prime for example @ ISO 400/800, or at F3.5 with kit lens at ISO 400/800/1600 with VR.

 

There is certainly technical merit in what you say, but you took this to a level best suited for dpreview.com. I shoot with a Canon 7D for action (crop factor) and a Canon 5D Mk II (full frame) for landscapes and portraits. Both have the feature to record *both* RAW and jpeg simultaneously and that is what I do. Yes, I am an Adobe subscriber using both PS and Lightroom. But for the sake of the discussion here, VR vs not-VR, the issue I was responding to was that of handheld shots at 1/30th or slower. My response was don't do that, and I offered alternatives.  Depending on the camera in use, the noise (more pronounced in RAW as you mentioned) factors in at different ISO speeds. I only see it with my current bodies at 3200 and above, and I rarely find a need to even try shooting at those speeds.  If so, it is a matter of getting the shot or not getting the shot.  Getting the shot wins vs not.

 

Honestly I believe one with understanding of high ISO noise in RAW vs jpeg would also understand that alternatives exist to taking handheld shot at such speeds, and if compelled to taking RAW only shots then must weigh the merits of noise in RAW vs blur and loss of sharpness, vs using a tripod or bean bag, vs using flash or reflected light, etc etc etc. 

 

I just saw too much discussion of VR for handheld slow shutter speeds. For tripod or bean bag shots VR is not even needed.

There are pros and cons to VR, but for most people, it's a plus as it allows a larger percentage of successful shots at slower shutter speeds.

 

I personally have never seen a great advantage to it for lenses shorter than 50mm, but for long lenses it's a great addition.  However, I also am quick to recommend very wide aperture prime lenses to people over cheap zoom lenses for the short focal lengths (a 30mm lens at f/1.4 lets in enough light that you don't need VR, for example, and takes far more interesting images too).

 

However, I have to temper my recommendations, since I'm lucky (?) enough to possess enough Nikon gear that I could likely trade it in on a (old, small) plane and a license.  :unsure:

 

Also, RAW images are almost always worth taking, but only if you are willing to invest the time in post processing.  The camera always starts with a RAW images, the difference is that when you choose a JPEG mode, the camera is in charge of converting that RAW image to a JPEG (and applying noise reduction if necessary).  About 95% of the time, you can do it better yourself with software.  The other main advantage of RAW capture is that you have the ability to edit images without any loss in quality.  If you edit a JPEG, you end up editing a compressed image and then re-compressing it once again, which isn't ideal.  That said, post processing of RAW images requires a time commitment (lengthy if you take lots of images) and also can require investment in software and hardware.

 

Anyway, the short version is that if you have the ability to purchase a VR lens over a non-VR lens, and that is the lens you want to buy, always go for it.  And if you want to learn to make the most of the images you capture, read up on RAW.

There is certainly technical merit in what you say, but you took this to a level best suited for dpreview.com. I shoot with a Canon 7D for action (crop factor) and a Canon 5D Mk II (full frame) for landscapes and portraits. Both have the feature to record *both* RAW and jpeg simultaneously and that is what I do. Yes, I am an Adobe subscriber using both PS and Lightroom. But for the sake of the discussion here, VR vs not-VR, the issue I was responding to was that of handheld shots at 1/30th or slower. My response was don't do that, and I offered alternatives.  Depending on the camera in use, the noise (more pronounced in RAW as you mentioned) factors in at different ISO speeds. I only see it with my current bodies at 3200 and above, and I rarely find a need to even try shooting at those speeds.  If so, it is a matter of getting the shot or not getting the shot.  Getting the shot wins vs not.

 

Honestly I believe one with understanding of high ISO noise in RAW vs jpeg would also understand that alternatives exist to taking handheld shot at such speeds, and if compelled to taking RAW only shots then must weigh the merits of noise in RAW vs blur and loss of sharpness, vs using a tripod or bean bag, vs using flash or reflected light, etc etc etc. 

 

I just saw too much discussion of VR for handheld slow shutter speeds. For tripod or bean bag shots VR is not even needed.

 

I agree with you completely. Although my post was a bit "complicated" and I tend to explain why sometimes you want to avoid high ISO shots, in some situations (low light) higher ISO settings is a must, and that's why ISO option exists on cameras anyway. If you have time on scene to take two or more photos, just do it - take one with VR an lower ISO/longer shutter and one with higher ISO and shorter shutter. Better safe than sorry. IF oyu are in a panic situation when you have two seconds to take a shot, feel free to bring up the ISO to 1600 or even more, and later in post processing do your magic.