VR: VR is less important on a wide lens than on a telephoto.

So all in all, I didn't think the VR was worth the price.

If you must have only Nikon, and VR is not important, the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 is a superb lens for about the same price

For me, I knew that I can't always get the best composition on a tripod, so the VR would be useful

Other similar-sized lenses would be the mediocre 24-120mm VR (this lens is FAR better in the overlapping part of the range), the 70-300mm VR (another excellent lens and a great complement to this one) and the very nice 180mm f/2.8 AF or AF-D.For the first time in the digital era, it is possible to carry an FX camera with a relatively compact, somewhat-affordable kit that spans the range from ultra-wide at 16mm to long telephoto at 300mm and to have excellent image quality throughout the range.

That is tremendously useful in a telephoto but less useful at 16mm, where 1/8-1/30 might be a usable non-VR shutter speed, depending on the circumstances.

But in those instances where setting up a tripod is difficult, not allowed or simply not possible, the VR on this lens will be very useful and appreciated

How useful is the VR on this lens?

Previously, most of the tests were made using VR where I consistently saw how useful VR is for travel and landscape photography.

The VR is more useful than I thought it would be!

Fairly sharp, the VR is great, it takes filters, and it has a very good range

Fairly sharp, the VR is great, it takes filters, and it has a very good range

Even shooting in strongly back-lit situations I don't see much.-The VR is pretty effective

The VR works!

don't blow up my shots for 30" prints,VR is not needed, but can be very useful andSometimes a high quality lens is made with components that weigh more than plastic

The bonus is getting the VR.

This lens is heavy, solid built, VR works great, focus is smooth and crisp.