What does a fast lens give you that VR can't???

[todd1664878707]

OK, so I'm about to buy the nikon 28-70 when a friend says to me "why

not buy the new 18-200? It's an optically strong performer and with

the VR, it's actually 'faster' than the 28-70". I didn't know how to

answer this. VR is supposed to be good for three stops, and the 18-

200 has an aperture of 3.5-5.6. When you add the VR in, it will be

way faster than the 28-70 2.8. How do I explain the 28-70 is a better

lens? Is it a better lens?

[mike dixon]

To answer the question in the title of the thread, the wider aperture gives you the option of shallower depth of field and faster (action-stopping) shutter speeds. If you're shooting moving subjects, lens stabilization does nothing to prevent blur from subject motion.

[ilkka_nissila]

Huh?

 

The VR in the 18-200 is actually good for 4 stops. However, it only compensates hand shake, it does not make the viewfinder brighter, in fact manual focusing a f/5.6 lens on a DX camera would be a nightmare I don't want to witness. VR in a slow lens like the 18-200 doesn't allow shallow depth of field if that's what you want at times, and of course, most important, it doesn't stop moving subjects. All of these aspects make the f/2.8 lens preferable to one with VR.

 

Not to mention the fact that the 28-70 is one of Nikon's finest lenses, while the 18-200, well, it's a snapshot quality lens closer to a point and shoot digicam quality level than what one would expect from an SLR.

[chris m., central florida]

VR works great, but it's no substitute for the limited depth of field and expanded aperture/shutter speed options of a fast prime or zoom lens.

[Rick Waller]

"The VR in the 18-200 is actually good for 4 stops."

 

Whoa - that depends on who is using the lens, wouldn't you say? I am not disputing that you may get a 4 stop benefit - but please don't jump to the conclusion that EVERYONE will have similar results.

 

Even with non-stabilized lenses - no one rule fits everyone. Some can handhold a given lens at 1/30 sec and get good results; most cannot. It really depends on how steady one's hands are.

[bradfarlow]

Other than shallow depth of field, it gives you a brighter viewfinder for ease in composition and in aids in manual focus.

[bradfarlow]

Shallow depth of field like this..............<div></div>

[bradfarlow]

or this.....<div></div>

[ShunCheung]

Todd, I suggest you take a look Edward Horn's comments in the following thread in the Wedding Forum. He had the 18-200mm but after using it only once, he decided to sell it:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FgYM

[jc5066]

Your friend is a moron. It is not faster and never will be. At times you need a "fast" lens to stop movement. VR will help stop photographers hand shake, but will not be faster.

 

Better yes and no. Depends on what you need it for. Do you need the wide ap or do you need the image stablizer for your handheld shots?

[vasilis]

to be honest for most people the 18-200 will be much more useful than the 28-70. There is no better lens. If someone wants one lens to do it all then the 18-200 is definetely better. It is all a matter of personal taste. I like shallow depth of field but the 28-70 2.8 for me is useless on a digital camera (and extremely useful on a film one). With the range it has (42-100) on a digital camera is like bying an expensive and not very bright prime.

 

If we were talking for the 17-55 2.8 (or something similar) then things are different.

[ned1]

Something else I hated about it. Yes, you can take a picture at 1/10, but that's useless if you are phographing anything that moves even slightly. All you are doing is replacing camera shake with motion blur.

[dennisprice]

<p>The "good for <i>n</i> stops" claim is misleading, as it seems to refer to f-stops. </p>

 

<p>VR does not in any way alter the basic relationship between f-stops and relative depth of field, light-gathering capability, viewing brightness, focus accuracy, optical performance wide open vs stopped down, etc</p>

 

<p>Nor does VR make a "slow" lens "faster", since in the conventional sense, those terms relate to maximum aperture.</p>

 

<p>The claim simply means that VR will automatically compensate for handheld camera/lens movement (not subject movement) such that sharp images may be possible up to 3 <i>shutter speeds</i> slower compared to the results from non-VR lenses.</p>

[jbq]

Like others have said, shallow depth of field, background blur and fast shutter speeds are attributes that VR can't replace.

 

On a wide-to-normal lens, shutter speeds with a VR lens quickly become critical. If the lens can allow to hand-hold 3 shutter speeds slower and if you have steady hands to start with, you'll get in the 1/4s range at the wide end, and at such a speed your subject will have to be almost perfectly static (even trees will visibly move in the wind at such a shutter speed).

 

On the other hand, VR lenses can give you a big depth-of-field hand-held, and added stability when using slow shutter speeds to capture subject blur or when panning.

 

While I can totally see the need for VR in a lens like a 70-200 or 80-400, I'm less convinced of its all-around usefulness in a wider lens.

 

Unrelated to VR itself, you'll still want to be sure to also compare the image quality (measure the "sweet spot" of the poorer lens and see which range of apertures on the better lens give you a similar image qaliity). Don't foget to take distortion into account, especially on the wide side.

[ellis_vener_photography]

You need a justification to buy a better quality lens (the 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor)?

[HuskyMason1]

Todd...for me the 28-70 is definetly not useless on a digital camera ...to some of us it is Nikon's best zoom lens; digital or film

 

everyone's shooting preferences are different, but the 18-200 is not faster or a better performer than either the 28-70 or the 17-55

 

my choice: 28-70 over the 17-55 (I have both) others feel just the opposite...right now IMO the 28-70 is Nikon's best portrait length lens for digital

 

If you prefer portraiture the 28-70 ...if you are more of a photojournalist type photographer perhaps the 17-55 (smaller and a bit lighter)

 

both are popular and expensive but worth it. Mike

[todd1664878707]

Thank you for all of your answers. I just needed help with what to tell him, and you guys supplied me with the words. On a side note, it's funny how most people think the 28-70 is useless on a DSLR. I love the range, mainly because I pair it with the 12-24.

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

"On a side note, it's funny how most people think the 28-70 is useless on a DSLR. I love the range, mainly because I pair it with the 12-24."

Todd-you hit the nail on the head; it's very much a personal choice-what some people love, others 'hate' and vice versa. It reminds me of my 35mm days when I had/used/loved Nikon's 43-86mm zoom; you were probably either 100% for it or 100% against it. cb

[douglas_greenberg]

When I read the original post the answer that came to mind was what other people have said, i.e., that a faster lens gives you the opportunity for shallower depth of field and action-stopping shutter speeds. QED.

 

However, as I read through the responses, a couple of things occurred to me that have rendered me a little bit contrarian here. First, if one is having problems getting fast enough shutter speeds in a given situation, with a DSLR the ISO can quickly be increased. I don't (yet) own a D200, but I gather that you can use fairly high ISO settings without undue problems with noise, and even if there is noise, skillful use of noise reduction software can minimize the problem. So whereas it's true that for a given ISO setting a 2.8 lens can stop action better than a 3.5 or 4.0 lens, the effective difference may not be as significant as first supposed.

 

Second: people claim that the 28-70 f2.8 is significantly better optically than the 18-200mm. I have no doubts that it is (somewhat) less prone to linear distortion (isn't it?) and that if you enlarge a frame greatly and look carefully, you might see some difference in resolution. But particularly within the 28-70mm. range, how great, really is the difference here? I really think that sometimes people make too much of what turn out to be fairly small differences in "sharpness" between lenses. In terms of how the finished photos actually look, these differences are often (not always) not particularly important. Sure, we all would like to have the very sharpest, best, most distortion-free lenses, but when it comes to actually garnering finished photos "on the ground," photos that are unlikely to be enlarged to 16" x 20", these "huge" differences in quality often kind of evaporate.

 

I have no doubts that if someone invested in a combination of the two premium Nikon zooms, the 28-70mm. 2.8 and the 70-200mm. 2.8 VR, these could do some things that a single 18-200mm. could not do. And at a significantly higher cost. I don't shoot weddings, but if I did, I could certainly see that using the 18-200mm. might not be the best approach. At the very least I think I'd choose to carry two DSLR's, each equipped with different lenses.

 

But for so very many everyday purposes, it seems to me that this new VR-equipped 18-200mm. is going to prove worth the investment for many, if not most Nikon owners.

[ShunCheung]

I was at a portrait lighting class this past weekend. Over two days I shot about 750 images on my DSLR. I would say 95% of them were shot with the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and a few with the 70-200mm/f2.8 VR. I had my 17-55 DX with me but didn't use it at all for the class.

 

Most of those images were shot at f4 with some at f2.8 and f5.6. One lens I wish I had were some 60 or 70mm f1.4 for the really shallow depth of field.

 

P.S. "Moron" is a very strong word; I hope Todd's friend is better informed now after this discussion.

[klix]

Just to round it out, one primary advantage of a VR lens is *ACTIVE VR* -- useful when shooting from a rocking/moving platform, such as a boat.

 

KL

[wilsontsoi]

For available light indoor sports, fast lenses AND high ISO performance are needed. I often have to even go with f1.4 primes instead of f2.8 zoom. If you don't need fast shutter speed for action stopping, nor don't need shallow d.o.f., then you can go with slower 18-200 with VR. It would make a great travel lens IMHO since it's less bulky and covers a very useful range (go light.)

[john schroeder]

Because VR dosn't make the basketball player run any slower.

[alex_lofquist]

Think of VR as an "electronic tripod".

[douglas_greenberg]

We all will agree, I think, that there are situations in which a truly fast lens is essential. The example of indoor, fast-motion sports is a good one. There also are situations in which the extremely shallow DOF of a fast lens is useful. And also lenses that have linear distortion sufficiently controlled that you can shoot archituctural shots that don't make you seasick (although I guess there is corrective software that can help here).

 

And a 28-70 (or 17-55) is built more ruggedly than an 18-200mm., as well.

 

No, there's no such thing as a free lunch. But I still see a huge upside for the new 18-200mm. zoom as an everyday lens.