Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Lens with VR vs without VR

  1. #21
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Quote Originally Posted by CasualBear View Post
    Ya.. I stand corrected.. What I meant was when taking static subj.. the VR helps with the camera shakes.. and when taking moving obj the the VR really only helps If the subj is still in frame.. the af is too slow to react... esp If like TS has mentioned, in auto mode; I find switching off the VR helps af better.. not sure whether because it's a d5200 body I'm using.. If a body with motor, it may b different..
    If the subj is not in frame, even with VR off or on, nothing helps. What can you shoot when your intended subject is not in frame?

    D5200 comes with AF-C subject tracking no? last time I checked it did.

    And how can a body with AF motor do better in AF? Since the lenses in question now are all AF-S? AF-motor in cam body is only used for one thing, to drive AF in lenses without AF motor built in.

    You are making less and less sense as you type more and more.

    I never found AF too slow to react even when VR is on. I think it comes down to technique and know-how. It is time for you to learn more about your camera and lenses and how they work. That is the best thing to do now before giving incorrect advice to others...

    And a sample photo... shot with VR ON. No problems.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 9th November 2013 at 06:23 PM.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    155

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Just my opinion, VR is best utilised for video capturing, where VR stabilisation helps in panning and/or tilting to ensure smooth transition and not make it feel like an earthquake occured. But having owned an 18-105 VR previously and now a 24-85 VR, i find that VR sometimes obstruct shooting. True, VR is useful for grab-and-go situations, that is provided your AF tracking is accurate and your subject is being tracked as VR kicks in. But due to the limitations of some DSLR and/or some lenses, AF tracking on subject is lost or AF on wrong subject is tracked. You can prove that VR stabilises 80% or more of a number of consecutive shots taken, but what if the background instead of the subject was tracked instead? Then u will end up with wasted shots. So from my experience, VR doesnt work magic. Like how other photographers would advice, for a grab-and-go situation, ensure that you jave a shutter speed high enough to prevent motion blur from kicking in. That is especially for street photography whilst travelling. For landscapes or portrait photography, having your DSLR stabilised on a tripod works much better thab VR. So VR doesnt work magic, it is the photographer who must know when and where to use VR.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    OK I have made the final call to get a all-in-one zoom lens, the options is down to the following 2:

    Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM - $400
    Tamron AF 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC - $470

    There are few Nikkor 18-200 VR1 in the BnS section at around $480-$500 but I rule that out because of the age on the lens and VR1 come without the zoom lock.


    can anyone senior member here advise based on the price above and the performance of the 2 lens, which one should I go for? If you can please let me know your main reason picking the lens.

    Thanks!
    Last edited by ctm1968; 10th November 2013 at 11:33 AM.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    155

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Quote Originally Posted by ctm1968 View Post
    OK I have made the final call to get a all-in-one zoom lens, the options is down to the following 2:

    Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM - $400
    Tamron AF 18-270 f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC - $470

    There are few Nikkor 18-200 VR1 in the BnS section at around $480-$500 but I rule that out because of the age on the lens and VR1 come without the zoom lock.


    can anyone senior member here advise based on the price above and the performance of the 2 lens, which one should I go for? If you can please let me know your main reason picking the lens.

    Thanks!
    Y not hunt for first-party lens? Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR DX should be retailing at abt $500 on BnS section. First-party Nikkor lens retain their resale value better than the third-party ones like Sigma and Tamron. And first-party lenses (Canon, Nikon, etc) generally perform better than third-party ones esp in the all-in-one-zoom category.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Quote Originally Posted by enenyi View Post
    Y not hunt for first-party lens? Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR DX should be retailing at abt $500 on BnS section. First-party Nikkor lens retain their resale value better than the third-party ones like Sigma and Tamron. And first-party lenses (Canon, Nikon, etc) generally perform better than third-party ones esp in the all-in-one-zoom category.
    Thanks Enenyi
    As I have said, I rule out that option (Nikkor 18-200 VR) because most of that lens in BnS section is 3-4 years old and asking around $470 - $550, and it don't come with Zoom lock which is useful when you walk a lot during your shoot. I have used this lens before and I am aware of the picture quality. The newer version of Nilkkor 18-200 VRII in BnS section is about $580 - $650 and they are usually 1-2 years old.

    The Sigma and Tamron are newer version and lower in price. That is my main reason.

    Thanks!! and keep your advise coming.

  6. #26
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Quote Originally Posted by ctm1968 View Post
    Thanks Enenyi
    As I have said, I rule out that option (Nikkor 18-200 VR) because most of that lens in BnS section is 3-4 years old and asking around $470 - $550, and it don't come with Zoom lock which is useful when you walk a lot during your shoot. I have used this lens before and I am aware of the picture quality. The newer version of Nilkkor 18-200 VRII in BnS section is about $580 - $650 and they are usually 1-2 years old.

    The Sigma and Tamron are newer version and lower in price. That is my main reason.

    Thanks!! and keep your advise coming.
    I think when you think of lenses, you should not be thinking about price... you should be thinking about value.

    In the end it is about Total cost of ownership. What is the point of getting a lens that is slightly cheaper, but you will be unable to sell in the future? Or pay slightly more to get better image quality, and better resale, and something that someone will actually want to buy from you when you are ready to sell and move on the better lenses.

    Do not be penny wise, pound foolish.
    Last edited by daredevil123; 10th November 2013 at 12:34 PM.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    155

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Quote Originally Posted by ctm1968 View Post
    Thanks Enenyi
    As I have said, I rule out that option (Nikkor 18-200 VR) because most of that lens in BnS section is 3-4 years old and asking around $470 - $550, and it don't come with Zoom lock which is useful when you walk a lot during your shoot. I have used this lens before and I am aware of the picture quality. The newer version of Nilkkor 18-200 VRII in BnS section is about $580 - $650 and they are usually 1-2 years old.

    The Sigma and Tamron are newer version and lower in price. That is my main reason.

    Thanks!! and keep your advise coming.
    1) Lower in price does not mean better lens. The Sigma and Tamron lenses being third-party lenses naturally command less buying price than the Nikon lens. Resale value is more important than buying price. Because unless you are gonna keep the lens till it reaches the end of its 10-year life cycle, u will need to upgrade to better lenses as u outgrow your equipment gear. Third party lenses lose value very fast, esp Sigma and Tamron cheaper lenses. By now, the earlier late-2000 lenses from them have seen 30-70% depreciation resale prices whilst Nikkor lenses hold firm to their buying prices.

    2) The Nikkor 18-200 VR that I was referring to is the newer VR2 version which has a zoom lock (refer to Ken Rockwell's page for illustration: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-200mm-ii.htm). The one without the zoom lock is the VR1 version. So does that level the playing field between Nikon, Sigma and Tamron lenses for consideration?

    3) The zoom lock is useful as a preventive measure, just like how the 'safe-mode' is useful to the SAR-21 rifle to prevent misfire. It is a feature that can be done without, and the earlier u outgrow that switch, the better u become as a photographer (I don't see professional-grade lenses like the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 have that lock at all). The zoom lock basically is super useful for earlier iterations of lenses that suffer from zoom creep (I had my 18-105mm suffer from zoom creep a lot previously, just point the camera downwards and the lens will auto-extend from 18 to 105mm). But the newer Nikkor lenses have stiffer zooms now to eliminate zoom creep (like the 24-85mm VR i'm using now). So for these newer lenses, zoom lock is redundant since the zooms dun creep. I believe the Nikkor 18-200 VRII doesnt suffer from zoom creep (or does it?), but I cant guarantee if the Sigma and Tamron lenses suffer or not.

    4) The choice between the 3 lenses should be obvious by now. I shall add another one, taking it from the technical aspect. The Sigma and Tamron lenses are at aperture f/6.3 at 200mm. The Nikkor lens is at f/5.6 at 200mm. Which means that at 200mm, you stand to lose a full stop of light for Sigma and Tamron lenses compared to the Nikkor lens. Granted that your DSLR has high-enough ISO capabilities, you will need to bump up your ISO to capture the same image at the same level of exposure using the Sigma and Tamron lenses than the Nikkor one at 200mm. If in the condition that you cant bump up the ISO, you will probably have darker, underexposed images using the Sigma and Tamron lenses compared to the Nikkor one. And the DSLR being constant, the Nikkor lens allows faster autofocus speed than the Sigma and Tamron ones at 200mm.

    So after all these, convinced to get the Nikkor 18-200mm VRII from BnS (provided you can find one)?

  8. #28

    Default

    Well, I think if you are that hard pressed for cash, then go for the cheapest - the Sigma. Now, I love Sigma lenses, but the 18-200mm OS HSM is not one of them. I am sure you are aware from the various reviews that the Sigma zoom lens is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    If it is truly between the 2 short listed lenses, I'd go for the Tamron. It is generally more well-received and, in my experience, pretty decent do-it-all lens.

    As for the suggestions to go for the Nikon 18-200 VRII, well, go for a 2nd hand one if you happen to encounter one. The price of a brand new piece is quite ridiculous, in my opinion.
    KF Photography
    Thanks for viewing!

  9. #29

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Thanks for all the input and suggestions from the senior here
    I have made my choice to go for Sigma for now, because of my Dec trip. I most likely will sell all my gear after the trip and go for full frame body and lens.

    BTW any idea is there a different btw Sigma 18-200mm f3.5 - 6.3 DC OS HSM and Sigma 18-200mm f3.5 - 6.3 DC II OS HSM?? Is it old and new version? what is the main diff?

  10. #30
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctm1968 View Post
    Thanks for all the input and suggestions from the senior here
    I have made my choice to go for Sigma for now, because of my Dec trip. I most likely will sell all my gear after the trip and go for full frame body and lens.

    BTW any idea is there a different btw Sigma 18-200mm f3.5 - 6.3 DC OS HSM and Sigma 18-200mm f3.5 - 6.3 DC II OS HSM?? Is it old and new version? what is the main diff?
    For the tamron, the only one worth looking at is the 18-270 VC PZD.

    I would skip the sigmas for super zoom.

  11. #31
    Member CasualBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daredevil123 View Post

    If the subj is not in frame, even with VR off or on, nothing helps. What can you shoot when your intended subject is not in frame?

    D5200 comes with AF-C subject tracking no? last time I checked it did.

    And how can a body with AF motor do better in AF? Since the lenses in question now are all AF-S? AF-motor in cam body is only used for one thing, to drive AF in lenses without AF motor built in.

    You are making less and less sense as you type more and more.

    I never found AF too slow to react even when VR is on. I think it comes down to technique and know-how. It is time for you to learn more about your camera and lenses and how they work. That is the best thing to do now before giving incorrect advice to others...

    And a sample photo... shot with VR ON. No problems.
    First pt is I meant when chasing the subj that's out of frame..

    Second n third.. the afc is driven by motor in the lens right? So If No motor... the lens effectively can't do the af tracking? What I See on the ranting is the af is comparatively slower than the Nikon lens.. so the af is sub par..

    Nice pic.. care to explain the technique involved?

    I guess If I can't share anyth based on my own findings.. there No way to know I have been wrong... so What u r suggesting seems to n just one-sided learning.. people make mistakes..
    Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photos..~ ;)

  12. #32
    Moderator daredevil123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    lil red dot
    Posts
    21,627
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Quote Originally Posted by CasualBear View Post
    First pt is I meant when chasing the subj that's out of frame..
    If you are doing it right, your subject should be in frame before you half press your shutter button (thereby activating AF and VR) and stay in frame till you fired off the shot. So, how can VR affect AF when the subject is out of frame? There are no AF points outside the frame last I remember.

    And btw, chasing after subjects that is out of frame is one of the worse things you can do... If your eye is stuck to the viewfinder, and the subject is out of frame, how can you chase it properly? People die that way you know... eye stuck to the viewfinder, start chasing and move around... fall down a cliff or a ditch... And it is not a joke, it has happened before.

    Second n third.. the afc is driven by motor in the lens right? So If No motor... the lens effectively can't do the af tracking? What I See on the ranting is the af is comparatively slower than the Nikon lens.. so the af is sub par..
    AF-C = continuous AF. It is driven by what ever is driving the AF in that lens. So if the lens is a AFS lens, it means the motor is built into the lens. No matter which camera body you use, it is the same motor driving the lens. So that presence of a AF motor in the cam body has no correlation whatsoever. And for lenses with AFS, it does not necessarily mean the AF motor is inferiror. Some AF motors in AFS lenses are simply superb. for example the AFS 800/5.6 VR, or even the 70-200VR2. You really do get what you pay for. With the much higher prices you are not just paying for the larger aperture or the image quality, you are also paying for superior AF and/or in other areas (like build). That is why some people will rather pay so much more to go for more expensive pro grade lenses.

    And on the other hand, some AFS lenses are know to have focusing speeds that are less impressive. An example is the AFS 50/1.4G. An older AF 50/1.4D on a fast camera like the D3s will outfocus the 50/1.4G any day. So maybe that is what you have been reading but misunderstood. But if the lenses in question are AFS (or 3rd party equivalent), the focusing speed is still mostly dependent of the motor in the lens itself.

    Nice pic.. care to explain the technique involved?
    Single spot AF with AF-C with VR on, panning and in the rain. So the subject is moving, and I am moving as well. VR worked fine, AF worked fine. In this situation the VR is useful because it removes any possible shake in the up-down axis. VRs nowadays are smart enough to know when you are panning...

    I guess If I can't share anyth based on my own findings.. there No way to know I have been wrong... so What u r suggesting seems to n just one-sided learning.. people make mistakes..
    Sure you can share. But when you know so little on what is going on, it is better to actually learn more about the craft and techniques first. At least have a good foundation of the basics first which I see you lack from your posts and advice in so many threads. And it is a good thing to be a little more humble when your mistakes are pointed out. And they will get called out sometimes, especially when some of us need to step in to make sure readers are not learning the wrong things. Don't feel offended and take it as a learning opportunity. No one started out knowing everything.

    Don't get me wrong, discussion is a good thing. But giving advice to others (with conviction, may I add) when your own understanding is lacking is not the best thing to do.

    And one more thing... think things through first before assuming, or typing. Many of what you wrote are common sense errors. So it might be prudent to also re-read and understand what you say or write a few more times before hitting "Post". An example of which is in the first point of this post (see above).
    Last edited by daredevil123; 10th November 2013 at 10:02 PM.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Just to share a thought about Nikon's VR.
    A few weeks ago, i did a college convocation shot.
    Using a 50mm f1.8 at f5.6 and on a tripod.
    There were about 300 graduands.
    Delivery time, quite a number of them were not pleased with their goods.
    The only complaint is "Uncle, why so sharp one my photos?".
    Now, based on this scenario, i have to balance the NOT using a tripod together with a VR lens.
    Or else, i have to clsoe shop because no graduands will want a blurred photo of him/herself.
    Too sharp, not problem. A bit blur, big problem.
    Sigh ... like this also cannot, like that also cannot, hang a pen by the bed (for Hakka folks to explain to the others)

  14. #34

    Default Re: Lens with VR vs without VR

    Quote Originally Posted by oldchaptoday View Post
    Just to share a thought about Nikon's VR.
    A few weeks ago, i did a college convocation shot.
    Using a 50mm f1.8 at f5.6 and on a tripod.
    There were about 300 graduands.
    Delivery time, quite a number of them were not pleased with their goods.
    The only complaint is "Uncle, why so sharp one my photos?".
    Now, based on this scenario, i have to balance the NOT using a tripod together with a VR lens.
    Or else, i have to clsoe shop because no graduands will want a blurred photo of him/herself.
    Too sharp, not problem. A bit blur, big problem.
    Sigh ... like this also cannot, like that also cannot, hang a pen by the bed (for Hakka folks to explain to the others)
    Could it be that some people are too used to their mobile phones and compacts images, and are not accustomed to sharp images? The LP and CD era do have a lot of complains that CD sounded 'too clean' too!
    What I really missed most, is my first SLR. An Olympus OM2 with the Zuiko 35mm f/1.4, back in 1982!

  15. #35
    Member CasualBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    485

    Default

    What can I say..? I was convinced until proven otherwise.. I did admit the mistake... so I see no pt carrying this on.. thanks for the hardwork maintain the quality on the forum and the explanations. Kudos

    One thing to highlight here is that many start by fiddling n just applying what they read on this hobby, can't say the same for those that take it seriously like a pro and make this the bread n butter.. So what comes as common sense to some may not be so obvious to the rest. Thanks for picking up on my brash posts.. will pick a check on that.
    Leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photos..~ ;)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •