does VR on 24-120 really have any effect?

[yanyewkay]

Doing a comparison to canon's closest simliar lens.

I've just tried the canon''s 28-105 f3.5-4.5 IS USM yesterday.

Was trying to see if IS really works at slow shutter speeds.

Using my friend's cam, I used full tele 105 and set to shutter priority to 1/13s.

Took 2 shots 1 with and 1 without IS. I couldn't see and diff.. I stabled myself at much as possible and the 2 pics look about the same (i would say it looks exactly the same.. but that's too much ).

Bringing the topic back to the 24-120, I'm going to get a D70 within the next few months and I was told that VR doesn't really help much on such short lenses and might as well spend the money on better lenses. I know sk8te has this lens

Just want to know if you guys really think that VR on the 24-120 is really worth the money.

And how do you test if the VR is really working? best if got pics to poison me into the BBB...

[Sk8te]

Originally Posted by yanyewkay Doing a comparison to canon's closest simliar lens. I've just tried the canon''s 28-105 f3.5-4.5 IS USM yesterday. Was trying to see if IS really works at slow shutter speeds. Using my friend's cam, I used full tele 105 and set to shutter priority to 1/13s. Took 2 shots 1 with and 1 without IS. I couldn't see and diff.. I stabled myself at much as possible and the 2 pics look about the same (i would say it looks exactly the same.. but that's too much ). Bringing the topic back to the 24-120, I'm going to get a D70 within the next few months and I was told that VR doesn't really help much on such short lenses and might as well spend the money on better lenses. I know sk8te has this lens Just want to know if you guys really think that VR on the 24-120 is really worth the money. And how do you test if the VR is really working? best if got pics to poison me into the BBB...

Wau lau... so many ppl here got this lens... hahah how come single me out only..

Personally I find the 24-120 VR much better than the kit lens... now a days I do not even bother bringing my kit lens out except for close gathering and events when I need the 17mm... once I get my 12-24, I think my kit lens can throw away liao...

PS - Just got the SB800... I can tell you, the 24-120VR stopped down to F8 together with the SB800 is a damn deadly combo man... pics are sharp as hell!!

PPS - But seriously, once I got the money, I should be getting the 17-55 together with the 70-200 and then I will dump the 24-120. Meanwhile its a very fun lens to use and challenging

[GitS]

Originally Posted by yanyewkay Doing a comparison to canon's closest simliar lens. I've just tried the canon''s 28-105 f3.5-4.5 IS USM yesterday. Was trying to see if IS really works at slow shutter speeds. Using my friend's cam, I used full tele 105 and set to shutter priority to 1/13s. Took 2 shots 1 with and 1 without IS. I couldn't see and diff.. I stabled myself at much as possible and the 2 pics look about the same (i would say it looks exactly the same.. but that's too much ). Bringing the topic back to the 24-120, I'm going to get a D70 within the next few months and I was told that VR doesn't really help much on such short lenses and might as well spend the money on better lenses. I know sk8te has this lens Just want to know if you guys really think that VR on the 24-120 is really worth the money. And how do you test if the VR is really working? best if got pics to poison me into the BBB...

the IS allows you to shoot in reasonably average conditions, to see the difference, just shoot normally, if you are going to steady yourself as much as possible (that takes time), it defeats the purpose of the IS...taking your test conditions to the limit, you may as well mount the setup on your tripod and shoot one with IS and one without...is there a difference?

[imaginary_number]

Originally Posted by yanyewkay Doing a comparison to canon's closest simliar lens. I've just tried the canon''s 28-105 f3.5-4.5 IS USM yesterday.

You mean 28-135 IS USM F3.5-5.6? 28-105 doesn't have IS.

[staz]

u will see the difference during 4- 7 pm timing and the shutter speed would be at around 1/15 and still able to get a good sharp image

[espn]

Wooo.. yes, it does make a diff.

[yanyewkay]

yah it's the 28 - 135.. haha sorry..

that means to say the 24-120 pic quality better than the kit lens?

sk8te.. ahah sorry ah.. just saw your night safari post so I know you have.. hahah.. dunn o about the others..

really really itchy to just dump all my savings to get the D70 now..

[yanyewkay]

Originally Posted by GitS the IS allows you to shoot in reasonably average conditions, to see the difference, just shoot normally, if you are going to steady yourself as much as possible (that takes time), it defeats the purpose of the IS...taking your test conditions to the limit, you may as well mount the setup on your tripod and shoot one with IS and one without...is there a difference?

mm.. also true.. maybe I'll go down to try out the lens again next weekend..
he buy i try.. hahah good?

[Zenten]

Originally Posted by yanyewkay Doing a comparison to canon's closest simliar lens. I've just tried the canon''s 28-105 f3.5-4.5 IS USM yesterday. Was trying to see if IS really works at slow shutter speeds. Using my friend's cam, I used full tele 105 and set to shutter priority to 1/13s. Took 2 shots 1 with and 1 without IS. I couldn't see and diff.. I stabled myself at much as possible and the 2 pics look about the same (i would say it looks exactly the same.. but that's too much Bringing the topic back to the 24-120, I'm going to get a D70 within the next few months and I was told that VR doesn't really help much on such short lenses and might as well spend the money on better lenses. I know sk8te has this lens Just want to know if you guys really think that VR on the 24-120 is really worth the money. And how do you test if the VR is really working? best if got pics to poison me into the BBB...

If you got the dough to spare ... go ahead and get the VR, but if you are under budget constraint like me ,,, get the lenses or for that matter, one all-in-one lens that you can use in any situation.

To me if you have good posture during shooting, VR or no VR, no diff.

$0.02

[Sk8te]

I think I posted this pics so many times here already.. to show the VR for the 24-120... I can say... thr VR is more obvous on the tele end...

And the VR on the 70-200 is sooo much more kicked in... like a turbo charged version of the 24-120...

here are the pics.. you guess which is with and which is without VR... both shot at same setting except with and without VR.

[mugenzim]

Good lens to shoot especially during nite at low shutter speed, it just works.....

But be careful of yr battery.....always carry spare....

[mugenzim]

[kerpalz]

especially when i`m using my d1x qith this baby..... need to relai bring more batteries...

[ratxx_hm]

Hi,

I am very sorry if my question is stupid or new,, I just bought D70 2 days ago, and looking for LENs,
Which LENs to use..?
24-120 Vr?
or the
28-200 G IF-ED?

is the 24-120 Zoom good enough.. if i want clear and sharp

I heard its multiply by 1.5x, am i correct to say 24-120 becomes 36-180mm?

REgards
Thanks

[sam_always]

some own comments... hope it helps... http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...=107434&page=3

[kegler]

Originally Posted by ratxx_hm Hi, I am very sorry if my question is stupid or new,, I just bought D70 2 days ago, and looking for LENs, Which LENs to use..? 24-120 Vr? or the 28-200 G IF-ED? is the 24-120 Zoom good enough.. if i want clear and sharp I heard its multiply by 1.5x, am i correct to say 24-120 becomes 36-180mm? REgards Thanks

120mm is still 120mm...the object is not getting nearer or bigger after the 1.5x ....just ur view is as narrow as a 180mm.

cheers