I have been photographing birds for about 4 years within the constraints of a fairly tight budget.

About 3 years ago the Nikkor 300 f4 AF-S was recommended to me (to replace my Phoenix 100-400mm lens) and it improved my photography immensely, I love this lens. Over the last few years I have practised my technique and I am getting fairly consistent results in so far as I enjoy the images and I do not have to rely on them to feed my family!

Now I am at the stage where I would like to get some more reach. Rather than struggle with AF by adding the 1.7 or 2xTC, I am looking to purchase some longer glass.

My question is this: There is obviously a marked price difference between VR and non-VR lenses. Is VR something that is absolutely necessary in your opinion? My decision comes down to this argument… It will take me at least a year to budget for this purchase and I will likely have to buy a used lens. Should I choose the length and opt for a 600 non-VR or budget for a little longer and choose the 500 VR?
Thanks in advance for your advice.

Keep in mind that VR is only useful at lower shutter speeds, when you're in good light and your shutter speeds are greater than around 1/500 or so(I think EJ did formal tests on this), VR may actually make your images softer.

With long lenses, vibration is the great enemy of sharp images – more so that you might think until you use one. And unless you plan to shoot only on bright sunlit days, you will want to shoot at slow shutter speeds. Also, both technique and support are a lot more important with a 500mm or 600mm than with a 300mm. Not to say that success is impossible without VR/IS, but keeper rate can vary significantly, depending on skill and circumstance. A plus of buying used is that someone else has already taken a depreciation hit. If you opt for a 600mm non-VR and struggle you should be able to get most of what you paid back if you sell and buy a 500mm VR.

Thanks Michael and Scott for your insights. I appreciate your thoughts very much.

The break even point for VR is 1/800 sec. Faster than that, it may very slightly degrade image quality, slower than that down to about 1/500 on a tripod it's a wash. At 1/500 and slower it is a benefit. You'd be surprised how often you have to shoot slower than 1/500. I would not invest the money in a long lens like this without at least having the option of VR available to you.

If your budget is seriously constrained, a Sony Alpha 65 will get you 24 megapixels on an APS sensor, providing additional cropping ability in better light. In addition, all lenses are stabilized, so you can purchase affordable, high quality glass like a used Minolta 400/4.5 or Sigma 500/4.5 and not worry about camera shake. You can also kiss mirror slap goodbye.

"better light" is the key. At least that's what I read about the Sony, that their high ISO performance is not very good.

But then, if you always shoot under bright light, VR/IS or not shouldn't be your concern since you likely can use faster shutter speeds. Some have found turning off the VR allow the camera to get the AF lock faster. Some would also suggest that you leave the VR on regardless of the shutter speed as you will have a stabilized image in your viewfinder. There're also some who leave the VR on all the time and find no degradation in image quality (may only be visible when zooming in 100% on your computer...is that how you present your photos?).

Of course, if you have the option, pick the one with VR. You may need it one day.

And there's always tripod. People have been using it since day one. I know a guy who shoots with a non-VR 500. The result is better than you think.

Unless you intentionally want the subject matter blurred in your photo, I am guessing nobody will want to shoot at slow shutter speeds when they have other choices. Even if your camera and lens stay motionless, your subject may not.

The high ISO is as good as any other 1.5x or 1.6x crop camera, except for those using the very latest Sony sensors (because the SLT mirror permanently directs 1/2 stop of light to the AF sensors.

At low ISO values where you are focal length constrained, the images are equal to or better than anything else out there.

Sony also offers the Alpha 580 with the 16MP APS sensor and an optical viewfinder (no 1/2 stop light loss), which is also stabilized. For someone who wants to photograph birds and simply does not not have $10,000 to spend on a dSLR and a long stabilized prime, the Sony dSLR and dSLT cameras are worth consideration. You can get an alpha 65 and a used Minolta 400/4.5 or Sigma 500/4.5 for well under $5000.

Thank you very much for all your suggestions. I appreciate your input very much.

Have a look at thishttp://irentphoto.com/2011/09/21/image-stabilization-vibration-reduction-is-it-worth-it/

I'd say save your money

That's one person's opinion. For every one opinion like that I can show you 10 pros that think the opposite. Just shoot once in a windy environment where you can't shoot at a fast shutter speed... Sure in perfectly controlled situations VR isn't needed but unfortunately nature doesn't work that way. There are many times when I have been shooting in windy conditions where even locked down on a tripod, there was movement of the camera and lens that would make it impossible to get a sharp shot without IS/VR. If youa re good with not getting the shot, save your money. If you absolutely positively need to maximize your odds of getting a good shot in all situations, then VR/IS is a must.

Additionally, if you plan on doing any video at all with big lenses (and even small ones), image stabilization during shooting is highly beneficial. While most video editing programs can remove some shake, it's not as effective as capturing the video without shake to begin with. These programs by the nature of the way they correct for it, must crop your video. So for video, stabilization is even more important.

The guy in that linked article ruins his credibility a little bit by saying he shot with a Nikon 500/4 VR2 - there is no such thing as a VR2 branded 500 from Nikon and never was!

I'm too sailing in the same boat, i.e. doing wildlife photography on a tight budget. People laugh, when I tell them that I haven't purchased a single lens for the last 10 years. None of my lenses have VR and the longest one is Canon 500 F 4.5 older lens, very often used with 1.4x and rarely 2x. I never knew VR may be that's why I never miss it, but I do miss AF when coupled with 1.4X. And I have used it very successfully, as low as 1/125 sec. I understand that VR is very helpful in some situations but it is not a cure all for sharp pictures.
I'm bit confused after reading so many comments, giving so much importance to VR. After all it is a tool, which is helpful in certain situations.
Jagdeep Rajput

I didn't use IS or VR for few years including a 500mm, 70-200mm with 1.4x TC and such, but as soon as my budget allowed, I moved to IS lenses. Otherwise, I would still use non-VR/IS lenses.

Good luck bud!

The question isn’t whether VR/IS is helpful for long lenses but rather how much and under what circumstances. And, is that level of help worth the difference in price for a particular individual? That last question is personal because we each vary in level of technical skill, choice of subjects, and shooting circumstances. And, we can only afford so much gear before the checkbook hits empty. What it comes down to is this. How slow can you go with and without and what is your keeper rate in the field, not under ideal test conditions. More importantly, is the difference worth it to you? It seems no accident that most who can afford VR/IS lenses purchase them when they can and are glad that the option exists despite the additional cost.

I was also looking at a non is-vr lens, to buy..I was thinking that a used 300 2.8 without is-vr maybe a better choice for the money.Not only are they alot cheaper..2200 no is,, or 3700 with is.. Also i was a little concerned with the vr, is, moter in these lenses burning out or as some say ,starting to make louder noise,seems like one more very expensive thing to go wrong....just my 2 cents

On a 300, I'd be much more inclined to go with a non VR/IS lens than 500 or 600 simply because they aren't as prone to vibration. In fact I have a non stabilized 300mm lens

Set up a long lens on your tripod and put live view on and watch the difference through the screen while switching from stabilized to non-stabilized during a slightly windy day. You will not believe the difference!

YES!!!! My point exactly in my earlier response. Thanks for the Live View suggestion to easily prove this.

On my gripped 50D it does have some vibration for the 300mm f/4L IS USM as tested during MFA adjustments. Mirror lockup did help of course with IS off. Balance of course is not very good with the grip weight added. This lens does have IS version 1 so no auto shutoff on a tripod.

Since the shake would be vertical on a mirror flop (landscape camera mounting) I suppose IS mode 2 would be the best in this case. Comment?

And whenever you shoot hand-held, the camera is not absolutely steady. I think the key is the use of fast shutter speeds if that option is available. If I'm shooting at 1/8000 sec handheld, I and my subject can both be in motion but the final photo can still show everything frozen and sharp. I've read that those who shoot 600 handheld rely on fast shutter speeds to get a sharp picture. And I think a steady image in the viewfinder resulting from the use of VR/IS also makes taking the shot easier, too.