The expectation is that camera shake does not result in a small "translational movement", shifting up/down/right/left, but a small "angular movement" like turning a little in those directions. If the angular movement is the same with a 24mm or 100mm lens, the effect is greater with the 100mm lens because the total angle of view of the frame is less. The other factor, though, is that physically longer lenses are likely to result in greater angular movement than physically shorter lenses, and a 24mm f/2.8 lens is much smaller than a 100mm f/2.8 lens.

While VR is used in macro lenses and exotic telephotos, it is usually not in most other prime lenses. While it helps avoid camera shake, it also adds optical and physical elements which can affect the overall image quality. People who shoot fast primes usually want the best IQ they can get, so not having VR makes sense.

My general solution to reducing camera shake when using primes is a monopod.

I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally better than zooms in terms of image quality and am looking at what primes would be useful for me. Looking at shorter focal length zooms (50-100mm or so), there's sometimes (usually) a considerable cost difference with or without vibration reduction.

I keep reading that at shorter focal lengths, 35, 50, 58, 60mm, etc., VR is not so important, but it seems to me that if I move the lens 1 percent of the frame height or width it shouldn't matter what the focal length is, the amount of blur would be the same.

Having consumed, by my guesstimation, 9000 gallons of beer during my life, my hand is not as steady as before, therefore this is an important consideration for me.

Input and advice please?

I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally better than zooms in terms of image quality and am looking at what primes would be useful for me. Looking at shorter focal length zooms (50-100mm or so), there's sometimes (usually) a considerable cost difference with or without vibration reduction.

I keep reading that at shorter focal lengths, 35, 50, 58, 60mm, etc., VR is not so important, but it seems to me that if I move the lens 1 percent of the frame height or width it shouldn't matter what the focal length is, the amount of blur would be the same.

Having consumed, by my guesstimation, 9000 gallons of beer during my life, my hand is not as steady as before, therefore this is an important consideration for me.

Input and advice please?

ametha, I never thought about the "adds optical and physical elements". Although I would have assumed the manufactures would have compensation optically for the in lens' VR system, maybe it is not as perfect a system as I think it to be optically. If one really thinks about it, the shifting of a lens element corrects for one big optical problem (blur) at the minor optical cost in sharpness. What also interesting about this particular problem is that doesn't exist for in body stabilization systems. In camera systems shift the sensor back in front of the image coming from the lens. Although it is not a perfect system either, it will result in a different identifiable image alteration.

This relates to a question that occurred to me recently. Thinking back to the time when we bought rolls of film for our cameras and there was no such thing as image stabilization, my rule of thumb was that I could hand-hold my camera and a 50mm lens if taking a 1/60 second exposure. I might get away with 1/30 of a second provided I could hold the camera especially steady.

Now, with image stabilization and zoom lenses I don't seem to have any rule of thumb to go by. I get a little nervous when taking hand-held shots of more than 1/30 second but I've had quite decent results for much longer exposures.

Does anyone have a good rule-of-thumb to suggest?

I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally better than zooms in terms of image quality and am looking at what primes would be useful for me. Looking at shorter focal length zooms (50-100mm or so), there's sometimes (usually) a considerable cost difference with or without vibration reduction.

I keep reading that at shorter focal lengths, 35, 50, 58, 60mm, etc., VR is not so important, but it seems to me that if I move the lens 1 percent of the frame height or width it shouldn't matter what the focal length is, the amount of blur would be the same.

Input and advice please?