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

[ilkka_nissila]

Eric, I'm not talking about specific shutter speeds. Four stops is by Nikon's own testing which I'm sure includes a group of people and is an average.

 

In any case, the principle of the VR is that it reduces the effects of camera shake on the image. Now, if the system is able to reduce the vibration amplitude by a factor of 2^4, then you get 4 stops. This should be pretty much independent on the person.

 

Is there a specific reason you suggest that the improvement provided by the VR would be dependent on the user?

[ky2]

<i>"Four stops is by Nikon's own testing which I'm sure includes a group of people and is an average"</i><br><br>

That's exactly it. It's an average. Namely, there are some people who may be able to squeeze out 5 fstops, and some only 2. I haven't used VR II, but with the VR/IS lenses I did have, I could benefit only 1-2 fstops more, and my lens holding technique is quite good-- I normally shoot with my 85/1.8 at 1/25" with very sharp results.

[ky2]

To your question, Todd-- you better as yourself "What does a VR lens give you that a fast lens can't???". The answer would probably be: more DOF, smaller, slower, cheaper lenses, and marketing pizzaz.

[vivek iyer]

Todd, Cut down on coffee and steady your hands. You will probably save money in that process as well.

 

Moron, Stupid, etc are words that are used in real life. Those who use it unwisely, just lose their shred of credibility, that is all.

[greg s]

I don't think of VR as faster at all... for me it has nothing to do with it. It's purely a matter of stability. I borrowed a VR lens and took this handheld test shot of a bird at 400mm, which I wouldn't bother doing without VR.

 

http://www.pbase.com/coraltown/image/57801372

 

Besides some relatively minor image quality issues with the lens (sharpness, contrast), the primary difference between this and what I would have gotten with a faster prime can be seen in the DOF (fairly deep).

 

Even if the shutter speed was N times faster with a different non-stabilized 400mm lens, I probably would not bother trying to handhold it (maybe use a shoulder mount). Perhaps it's an unnecessary restriction I adhere to, but that's how I approach it.

[ilkka_nissila]

Vivek, these words are not normally used in written communication nor in discussions which are meant to be archived and searchable. I don't think Philip really meant photo.net to reach for the gutter to find words.

 

Yaron, did you test the effect of VR on sharpness using a series of 10 shots or more (per shutter speed) and determine the equivalent shutter speeds using that data? Which lens did you test.

[ShunCheung]

Vivek, those who use words such as "moron" to describe other members are not welcome to post here. That kind of language simply leads to flames. I kind of make it an exception in this thread since Todd's friend is not a specific person (i.e. name) that we are aware of involved here.

 

However, some people refer to those camera settings intended for beginners as "idiot mode" or "moron mode." As long as we are merely talking about a feature instead of a particular person, that is not as offensive.

[vivek iyer]

Shun, I agree (as will almost all the participants here would) that it is good to keep the language of the forum fairly clean.

[hash]

What we really need is an 18-200/2.8VR... oh make it 15-120/2.8 VR. Hey wait, why not 12-300/2.8 VR3?

[david_h._hartman]

<em>...in fact manual focusing a f/5.6 lens on a DX

camera would be a nightmare I don't want to witness. --Ilkka

Nissila<br>

</em><br>

I have a slight disagreement with this statement. The 400/5.6 ED

AI Nikkor isnt bad to focus on the D2H (or D2X). The

viewfinder in these cameras have a lot of bite and image sizes

isnt too bad. Since this is surely referring shorter f/5.6

lenses used on economy DSLR(s) I also can agree.<br>

<br>

Its often said that AF cameras dont have good viewing

screens for manual focus. Again this is not true of all AF camera

but its true of many and again it is true of many economy

models. I see this as a matter of marketing because the F4s and F5

focus screens are excellent for manual focus. The F100 in my

tests is not quite as good but still very good and the economy

SLR(s) Ive tested are poor. It is marketing because the

economy camera needs certain features and must meet a price point.

Some things have to go and a high quality viewfinder is one.<br>

<br>

There are very few lenses with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 that I

will accept. Even f/4.5 is too slow with most lenses. I had a 28~105/3.5~4.5D

AF zoom and gave it to a school. F/4.0 is my normal minimum and I

really want a minimum of f/2.8.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

I would find VR most useful with longer lenses where it can tame

camera movement at shutter speeds that still reasonably stop

subject movement. The longer lens will magnify subject movement

so if the subject is close VR cant cure all. VR with a slow

lens is not particularly appealing to me. I can see using VR with

a 105/2.8 lens but not for macro. I can see using VR with a 70~200/2.8

and 200~400/4.0 lens but VR with a 200/5.6 lens holds no appeal

for me.<br>

<br>

VR with a lens like the 18~200/3.5~5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II makes

excellent sense because those who buy this lens are looking

mostly for convenience. They want one lens to cover wide to long.

They want one lens so they dont have to bother changing

lenses. The want a light lens and so on. VR will serve these well.

Nikon will make a bundle on this lens Im sure.<br>

<br>

Most of these conversations boil down to economy and convenience

v. quality and performance. I afraid the quality and performance

of high end lenses is lost on many. Others dont have the

motivation to carry a heavier camera and lens. <br>

<br>

A friend of mine bought an N65 and 24~200/3.5~5.6 and was very

pleased with these. The lens almost gave me vertigo (OK, Im

joking) when I zoomed in to 24mm. The linear distortion is really

bad. Now he is using this lens on a Fuji S2 and still loves his

lens. I tried to get my friend to buy a 28~105/3.5~4.5D AF and F100,

then an N80 and then gave up, different objectives, different

standards.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>How do I explain the 28-70 is a better lens? Is it a

better lens? --Todd<br>

</em><br>

For my use and yours it is a far better lens. On a film camera its

a mild wide angle lens to short portrait length. On a DX camera

its a wide normal to a medium portrait lens. Either way its

a good call.<br>

<br>

<em>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<br>

</em><br>

Different objectives, for some a 17~55/2.8 is the right lens for

others the 28~70/2.8 is. I would think for many both would be a

good choice depending on the specific use. On a tighter budget a

35~70/2.8D AF is a great lens for DX.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[ky2]

<i>Yaron, did you test the effect of VR on sharpness using a series of 10 shots or more (per shutter speed) and determine the equivalent shutter speeds using that data? Which lens did you test.</i><br><br>

Obviously, this was not a scientific test. I've shot with Canon's 70-200/2.8 IS and the 28-135 IS lenses, as well as Nikons 24-120 VR lens. The benefits were marginal when I turned off the IS/VR.. in fact, for the 70-200, I once forgot to turn IS on, and shot it for half a day. Redid most of the shots with IS on, and the difference was not of a huge magnitude. I haven't really been stretching the shutter either (mostly at 1/125").

[lex_jenkins]

In college I took Math for Morons, otherwise known as Math for Football Players and Journalism Majors.

 

VR isn't a substitute for a fast lens or fast shutter speed. But some days it saves me from having to lug a tripod. It's a useful tool, not a cure-all.

[loreneidahl]

A VR lens does not stop subject movement.

 

For me, unless I am strung out on Mountain Dew, the VR lens is totally a waste ( having tried a few of the VR lenses). Building up arm strength and proper breathing and handholding habits are far more beneficial to me.

 

All of my shots have to be wide open 100% of the time because of the lighting conditions I find myself in. Using a tripod how I shoot is not possible nor a monopod. I need at least 2.8 on all of my zooms to give me enough light to work with.

 

Lets see manually focusing a AF lens in the dark with an apature of 3.5 and expecting to get critical focus... Hmmm

[todd1664878707]

A thanks to everyone for all of your answers. I now know how to answer my friend's question as to why the 18-200 isn't better than the 28-70. And don't worry, he wasn't offended when you called him a moron although it would be nice if we could be a little more professional.

[greg s]

Unless the focal length of the lens is taken into account, there is no comparison to make. 70mm & 200mm handheld are different apples and oranges.

[ned1]

I think the 18-200 is a fantastic amature lens. It's THE lens to own if you only own one lens, and I think that is what Nikon intended. But it's simply not a pro lens. If you are not a pro then buy it. If you are ignore it.