What's better: a fast lens, or vibration reduction?

I've been a Nikkor snob for years until I recently - when I bought a

Tokina 12-24 ATX Pro lens for my new D50. I love the Tokina.

<P>

Next, needing a longer zoom, I bought a new Nikon 24-120 3.5/5.6 VR

lens, slipping back into my snob days. Allow me to add that it cost

about $550.

<P>

Today, a friend of mine showed me his Tokina 28-70 (f2.8!) ATX Pro SV

zoom, for which he paid about $230. He also shoots with a D50. The

lens keeps a constant aperture of 2.8 throughout the zoom range,

unlike my Nikon lens. I did some test shots using his Tokina lens vs.

my Nikon VR lens, and the Tokina was superior in sharpness across the

board. Same exact settings, same camera, careful testing.

<P>

<b>Which is better? A slower lens with vibration reduction, or a

faster lens without it?</b> I rarely shoot telephoto, so 70mm max

focal length is fine.

<P>

Frankly, I'm seriously bummed out that the Tokina seems to be a

better lens for less than half the cost. Can someone verify or

dissuade my fear? I'm about 10 minutes away from posting the VR lens

on eBay and picking up the Tokina.

<P>

Thanks!

<P>

Jeff

If you need to shoot things that DON'T move in low light, VR will be useful. If you need to shoot things that DO move, then you need a faster aperture. Remember that VR enables you to use slower shutter speeds; it can't freeze motion.

Most Super Zooms (24-120mm) decrease optical quality. On the other hand, primes do not sacrifice quality, they produce better images. Usually smaller zooms like 24-70mm produce better results than super zooms.

 

VR on the other hand, does not contribute with the glass. Only applies to vibrations.

 

So, (Which is better? A slower lens with vibration reduction, or a faster lens without it? ) This depends on your monetary solvency.

 

VR lenses are in my opinion, only for static shots or catching motion while panning to create a sens of speed in a photograph.

Well, there are many situations where even a slow shutter speed is ok. The best solution is usually an f/2.8 VR lens :-). Of course they only make one such lens: the 70-200/2.8.

For that range, I'd rather have a fast lens, since you can usually shoot around 1/60th without

issue anyway, and any slower will blur motion. For longer telephoto ranges, if you're going to

use the lens hand-held, VR can help over a fast lens because you can use slower shutter

speeds and it will be lighter.

IMO - fast lenses

<i>

The best solution is usually an f/2.8 VR lens :-). Of course they only make one such lens: the 70-200/2.8.

</i>

 

<p>

...also the 300mm f/2.8 VR, and the even faster 200mm f/2 VR.

</p>

 

<p>

--Bill

</p>

Fast lenses, IMHO.

I'd go for fast lenses. They give you more options in terms of depth of field control.

 

Cheers

Al

I vote for fast lenses with an anti-shake SENSOR. Like they have in Monolta dSLR. Following the demise of KM, Sony will hopefully be able to make such sensors for Nikon - soon:)

Oh, I forgot those lenses. Yes, they're out of the price range of things I would even consider. :-)

I have shaky hands so unless I shoot relatively motionless subjects in bright light or use a tripod I can't take advantage of the inherent sharpness of some lenses. For me the 24-120 VR gives me a better shot at getting more effectively sharp photos.

 

Ideally I'd have a 24-120/2.8 VR that's as sharp as the 28-70/2.8 AF-S. Until Nikon makes such a lens, what I've got is good enough.

 

However, when shooting in dim light I still often prefer a faster lens since the faster shutter speed has essentially the same advantage as VR.

 

If your hands are steady and you don't do a lot of panning or moving while shooting (I sometimes walk while shooting sports), the 24-120 VR may not be the best lens for you.

Here is something to consider: Nikon and Canon only put VR/IS into short focal lenght, consumer grade zoom lenses. The short pro lenses don't have it.

 

In your case, if you shoot in lighting conditions where you can hold the camera steady without VR, then you will probably get sharper pictures using a 3rd party f2.8 zoom lens.

I vote for the faster glass.

 

I used to mainly use my 50/1.8 and a Sigma 70-210/2.8 (I don't tend to do a lot of wide angle shooting). Bought the 24-120/VR, and after a number of months using it I've come to the conclusion that my photos have taken two steps back. I've decided to sell it, and get another fast or fast-ish lens in its place. Thinking of either a 105 macro or an 85/1.8, for a more manageable longer option on those occasions when I can't or won't carry the bigger heavier 2.8 zoom.

Fast lenses tend to have superior optics and build quality, as a fairly general rule. So it's not

just a matter of low-light capability. You'll find that a zoom lens that has a constant aperture

of 2.8 or less will most often give a sharper pic than one that has a variable aperture, most

notably when shooting wide open.

What Guy said. VR helps greatly with camera shake but does nothing to stop blur caused by

subject motion.

For me, the first and foremost 'feature' of a lens would be that it can form decent images.

 

Everything else is.. a distraction!

Fast lenses, and tripod for the times when that is not enough. VR gives 2-3 stops. Fast lens can give 1-3 stops as well. Tripod gives unlimited stops.

A Nikon insider friend of mine says that some engineers have gone to independent manufacturers and helped to raise the quality of their lens lines. He also believes, but can't confirm, that some different brands are made at the same plants, ala Cosina/Zeiss Ikon/Rollei/Voightlander/Xpan, etc.

 

The quality of some of those lenses makes you wonder. What makes me so testy with Nikon is that the quality of indy manufactured lenses were once spotty--one or two might actually be good while the rest of the line was terrible.

 

Conversely, Nikkors were all pretty good with only a few exceptions. With Nikon's introduction of dogs like some of the kit lenses that bare the ED and IF logos, they've mucked up the brand and made it difficult to buy any Nikkor and be assured it lives up to the quality we've come to expect.

Lex, in all my time of shooting sports I don't remember anyone ever walking

and shooting at the same time! Except for maybe running to celebration and

shooting wildly while enroute. That totally cracked me up.

 

Jeff, there are a few times when faster is better,... lenses are one. I think I'd

buy and try the Tokina before I put the VR on ebay.

This thread shows a degree of consensus rarely reached in this forum. I'll contribute: I'd much prefer a faster lens over VR.

One more thing to consider: a fast lens typically loses much of its quality when you open it up. VR doesn't have this disadvantage. So if your subject is still enough, you'll get much better quality by shooting at f/5.6 with VR than at f/2 without.

.... assuming that the f/5.6 is like that in the 70-200, not the 24-120.

Fast Lenses!

 

Fast lenses also are far more versitale and they allow you a brighter viewfinder image on those cameras that have decent viewfinders

It's quite strange. I bet that the 70-200 probably outsells the fast primes by a factor of 10 or 100... so it seems that the fast lenses crowd has already bought their glass decades ago and the VR crowd are the ones with the money?