Faster lens or VR?
Discussion
fergusd said:
VR + small aperture is not the same as large aperture fast lens . . . DOF . . .Fd
Yes indeed - in my circumstances it's about getting a shot that doesn't have camera-shake; shallow DOF is nice but secondary.
I guess I just answered my own question! Pity the 17-55mm f2.8 is so expensive.
A discussion I recall from the other day... 
Personally I would go for the larger aperture
Advantages:
1) Brighter image in viewfinder - makes composition easier
2) DoF choices - especially as DX sensor size implies increased DoF over Full Frame*
3) Optical quality
4) All very well being able to deal with camera movement but you can't control subject movement!
5) Weight differential for mechanicals rather than optics!
* Or does it?????? Long detailed arguments on a postcard please to the usual address....
[Tongue/cheek mode ON]
Plus, not to be overlooked, "Snobbery Value" as we learn that the 18-200 doesn't qualify for the Nikon "Pro" title!
Does it get a gold line?
[Tongue/cheek mode OFF]
6:nil against the VR then
Personally I would go for the larger aperture
Advantages:
1) Brighter image in viewfinder - makes composition easier
2) DoF choices - especially as DX sensor size implies increased DoF over Full Frame*
3) Optical quality
4) All very well being able to deal with camera movement but you can't control subject movement!
5) Weight differential for mechanicals rather than optics!
* Or does it?????? Long detailed arguments on a postcard please to the usual address....
[Tongue/cheek mode ON]
Plus, not to be overlooked, "Snobbery Value" as we learn that the 18-200 doesn't qualify for the Nikon "Pro" title!
Does it get a gold line? [Tongue/cheek mode OFF]
6:nil against the VR then
Having sold most of my collection and replaced with 2 VR, I'm firmly in the VR camp. (My only non-vr is wide so the shake thing not such an issue.)
What I did before buying was to go through over 4000 mixed subject pics and extract the EXIF for aperture. Not an exact thing by any means but my 2.8 lens had only ever taken (IIRC) less than 60 odd at 3.5 or less in that selection.
Haven't regretted either purchase at any point, the versatility is great for me.
It also helps greatly in the colder weather when I have an old elbow injury that causes a bit of a tremor!
What I did before buying was to go through over 4000 mixed subject pics and extract the EXIF for aperture. Not an exact thing by any means but my 2.8 lens had only ever taken (IIRC) less than 60 odd at 3.5 or less in that selection.
Haven't regretted either purchase at any point, the versatility is great for me.
It also helps greatly in the colder weather when I have an old elbow injury that causes a bit of a tremor!
I did have a thought straight after the last posting....
We never (at Solutions-Expo) got a satisfactory suggestion as to why DX lenses should be "better" for DX sensors than previous lens ranges.
Now, it's in Nikon's best interest to promote DX lenses - if there is a significant advantage to having a lens designed for a DX format. I haven't heard that argument, so does the manual lens, designed maybe 20 years ago, or more (?) have any downside when used with a DX sensor?
(6:1 then?)
We never (at Solutions-Expo) got a satisfactory suggestion as to why DX lenses should be "better" for DX sensors than previous lens ranges.
Now, it's in Nikon's best interest to promote DX lenses - if there is a significant advantage to having a lens designed for a DX format. I haven't heard that argument, so does the manual lens, designed maybe 20 years ago, or more (?) have any downside when used with a DX sensor?
(6:1 then?)
beano500 said:
We never (at Solutions-Expo) got a satisfactory suggestion as to why DX lenses should be "better" for DX sensors than previous lens ranges.
Now, it's in Nikon's best interest to promote DX lenses - if there is a significant advantage to having a lens designed for a DX format. I haven't heard that argument, so does the manual lens, designed maybe 20 years ago, or more (?) have any downside when used with a DX sensor?
I'd wager 'no'. The benefit of DX lenses is that they can use less glass and therefore be physically smaller lenses - so ought to be cheaper than equivalent FF ones. However, with a lens designed for 35mm, you'll be using the best bit (middle part) and discarding the edges where any problems might lie. Logic tells me that classic lenses like the 50mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.4, which gave excellent results on 35mm, should be *even better* with a DX sensor.
I'm sure that their phrase 'optimised for DX sensors' really means 'smaller image circle'. I wish Nikon would use a little less marketing spin and get down to facts and science a bit more, because we're not idiots - as the questioning in that last seminar showed.
poah said:
would rather have f2.8 than VR. VR is fine for non moving targets but won't help you if your trying to take a pic of somthing moving.
Rubbish, VR is absolutely fine for moving targets.
www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/24_120_35g_afs_vr
www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/70-200_28g_afs
www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/80-400_45_afd_vr
www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/200-400_4g_afs_vr
HankScorpio said:Didn't help much for this subject, though!? www.pbase.com/image/34747374
would rather have f2.8 than VR. VR is fine for non moving targets but won't help you if your trying to take a pic of somthing moving.
Rubbish, VR is absolutely fine for moving targets.
Are you feeling OK Ben? 
beano500 said:
I think Simpo Two's got a multiple order in by now.
Yep, Berger Bros in the US and a trade supplier in the UK, neither of whom wanted a deposit so I can cancel easily enough. However, I'll be very surprised if one turns up before I leave for NZ, so chances are I won't get my paws on it until end of Jan. Prices are pretty similar but Berger are throwing in a spare EN-EL3e battery (or alternative to same value).
406tm said:
VR is fine for non moving targets but won't help you if your trying to take a pic of something moving.
Quite wrong, The lens senses when it is moving horizontally and brings the VR function into play.
ok then take a picture of a moving baby at 1/30s without flash and see if you get a crisp photo. not going to happen is it. faster lens means you get a faster shutter speed to freeze the movement.
>> Edited by poah on Sunday 27th November 21:18
Chaps, you're confusing subject movement and camera movement. Yes, VR2 detects horizontal pans and acts accordingly, and yes, it can't freeze a subject that's moving within a fixed frame.
NB There's also the Sigma 20-40mm f2.8 which looks pretty handy, RRP £650 but Warehouse Express are selling for only £249... not HSM though:
82mm filter thread
www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/20-40mm.htm
>> Edited by simpo two on Sunday 27th November 22:30
NB There's also the Sigma 20-40mm f2.8 which looks pretty handy, RRP £650 but Warehouse Express are selling for only £249... not HSM though:
82mm filter thread
www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/20-40mm.htm
>> Edited by simpo two on Sunday 27th November 22:30
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff