18-55mm Nikkor lens with or without VR?

[balsop]

I'm getting ready to buy a D40 and am probably set to go with a kit that contains the standard stock 18-55mm lens (without VR) and the 55-200mm lens (with VR).

But I was thinking--should I be putting a little extra money toward an 18-55mm lens with VR now, rather than buying the more basic one and wishing I had upgraded from the start? Or is the 55-200mm lens more likely to need the VR than the 18-55mm one...and that's why you don't see the latter with VR as often?

I want to be able to take pictures inside buildings like cathedrals in Europe this summer, so VR could come in handy on that 18-55mm lens...

Any thoughts? Thanks!

[K1W1]

Or is the 55-200mm lens more likely to need the VR than the 18-55mm one...and that's why you don't see the latter with VR as often?

The reason you don't see the non VR 55-200 is that it's not a very good lens and at the price for the VR model nobody in their right mind would buy the other version.
I'd spend the extra on the VR 18-55 for what you want to do but I would also be looking at a much wider lens as well for the inside shots. Eighteen on a DSLR really isn't that wide when you start trying to take inside shots.

[Rooz]

the VR version is the better option if you can afford it. it also has improved optical performance aswell, so its not just VR.

[btuner]

i love my kit lens, but it would have been nice to have the option to have it come with a VR for a little bit more. youd have to find just a body only d40 to go that route which they dont do new. i would also look around at the 55-200mmVR lens not in a combo, it's probably cheaper separately. I got my d40 with the 55-200mmVR for about $600 shipped. just call places your interested in buying from and see if they can work any deals if your buying more than one thing. i did that with adorama

[britkev]

I'll admit to being as much of a technophile as most, but I am gonna baulk here and query the need for VR on a lens with a max focal length of 55mm...

With average technique you can handhold a 55mm lens quite safely without VR at 1/60th, with a little bit of commonsense, thought and technique, 1/30th is going to be no problem, and even a 1/15th is doable... by the time you add a couple of stops to that, movement of your subject is becoming a bigger factor than hand movement anyway, so unless you are taking pictures of interior architectural features in dimly lit buildings that prohibit the use of flash and/or tripods I really don't see where VR takes you on such a lens. Seems to me more a product of the marketing department than any technical R&D. Then again I do actually remember having to decide which body to buy depending on whether you wanted aperture or shutter priority auto-exposure, and auto-focus is still suspiciously new-fangled to me ;)

That said I am thinking about putting the new 16-85mm VR close to the top of my shopping list, not because of the VR, particularly, but the idea of a 24-130mm equivalent as a close to do-it-all lens seems useable... for my everyday shooting I have found always 18mm more limiting on a digital body than anything on the long end where I'm prepared to pay good money later for good glass, as and when I can afford it, and my cheap and cheerful 70-300mm gives me the reach I crave occasionally for now so the 16-85 appeals to me more than the 18-200.

[K1W1]

the 16-85 appeals to me more than the 18-200.

I agree entirely. I would love a 16-85 the size would be nearly perfect for about 85% of my shots but the price is stupid for a consumer grade lens and the optical performance doesn't seem to justify the price from what i have seen and read.
The 18-55VR appears to be better optically than both the previous versions and it's not expensive so that is my reason for suggesting it.

[britkev]

I've cooled on the 16-85 having researched street prices now... it's pretty much the same price as the 18-200 :( .

There are a couple of posts on Nikonians praising the 16-85 for sharpness, but for now I guess I'll probably carry on without VR, after all I have been taking pictures for 40 years without it, and plump for the 18-135.

I need a lottery win ;)

[Rooz]

I'll admit to being as much of a technophile as most, but I am gonna baulk here and query the need for VR on a lens with a max focal length of 55mm.

there isn't a need at all. there also isnt a need for a 3inch hi def screen, customisable menus et al. the point is more so, if the option is there, why not take it ?

[Visual Reality]

I'll admit to being as much of a technophile as most, but I am gonna baulk here and query the need for VR on a lens with a max focal length of 55mm...

With average technique you can handhold a 55mm lens quite safely without VR at 1/60th, with a little bit of commonsense, thought and technique, 1/30th is going to be no problem, and even a 1/15th is doable... by the time you add a couple of stops to that, movement of your subject is becoming a bigger factor than hand movement anyway, so unless you are taking pictures of interior architectural features in dimly lit buildings that prohibit the use of flash and/or tripods I really don't see where VR takes you on such a lens.
I took a still shot at a speed of 1/2 last night with mine, handheld at 55mm in a room with only a single incandescent on the ceiling at 9:00 PM. That speaks for itself - try doing that without VR.


there isn't a need at all. there also isnt a need for a 3inch hi def screen, customisable menus et al. the point is more so, if the option is there, why not take it ?
The fact of the matter is VR just works, and gets you 2-3 stops extra for a mere $80 or so over the non-VR version. It's also a better lens, so just do it.

[Tony_V]

I need a lottery win ;)

That about sums it for most of us...:)

The 18-135mm is a decent lens. It's the kit lens that came with my D80. I like it I just wish it was faster...but then it wouldn't be a kit lens...

In my opinion VR is always nice to have. Nikon advertises 2 or 3 stops advantage for certain situations . That advantage is at any focal length. You may not need it as much at 50mm as you would at 200mm but the advantage still exists.

I'm holding out for the 18-135mm F2.8 VR for $400...:D