Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: VR or F2.8

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    big tree town
    Posts
    2,389

    Default VR or F2.8

    Hi, recently was thinking about whether VR or F2.8 lenses are better. I am talking in terms of their ability for the user to do handheld shooting under the usual indoor lighting condition.

    I know that F2.8 generally allows the user to shoot at a faster shutter speed due to larger aperature and leading to better bokeh effects and sharpness in the process. VR basically just helps to stabilise the image (i think canon have something similar too), otherwise the sharpness and bokeh are generally the same as the normal lenses.

    Recently started to play around the long telephoto range so this thing came to my mind.

    Anyone had experiences? Care to share with newbie like me?
    cameras are not made of tofu

  2. #2
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    23,686
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    they are not the same

    f2.8 lens with VR can shoot up to 3 stops slower
    f2.8 with a tripod can shoot.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cons digger.
    Posts
    3,924

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by ortega View Post
    they are not the same

    f2.8 lens with VR can shoot up to 3 stops slower
    f2.8 with a tripod can shoot.
    provided your subjects stays inanimate or stationary
    “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Bukit Timah
    Posts
    59

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    I got for F2.8 as I think shutter speed more important.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    276

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    F2.8 allows a lot of light coming to the sensor, hence you can freeze actions more readily. While the VR itself will allow the mitigation of user introduced vibrations. They are essentially mutually exclusive to each other. Look at this with the following example.

    Type : Portrait shot (subject is still)
    Condition : Bright daylight with no ND filter
    Objective : Soften the subject and defocus the background

    You will not be able to do that with a say 18-200VRII with F3.5-5.6 that effectively as compared to say the 17-55 F2.8 constant. But lets take a look at another situation

    Type : Action shot (moving subject, too far for flash to reach)
    Condition : Stadium / Court lighting
    Objective : Freeze action without use of flash

    You will see that the VRII is essentially useless in this situation, you wil need the F2.8 or maybe even the F2 to F1.8 prime lenses if you are that serious. We can see from this 2 examples that VRII and big aperture is mutually exclusive is the extreme situation. For me, I do not do much action shots in poorly lit situation, I go for the VRII.
    Last edited by kkcharles82; 10th May 2007 at 12:30 PM. Reason: Paragraphing is not coming out the way I want it to be

  6. #6

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    2.8 is very useful to have..but i feel that esp. at the tele ends....having it coupled with VR will be a plus...

  7. #7
    Moderator Cactus jACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Singapore (Kallang)
    Posts
    3,933
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    you essentially have the arguements all there... now, only question you have to ask youself is would you be walking around with a tripod or have time to steady yourself for a shot? at the long end (200mm), you would need time to steady yourself to aviod "camera shake", imho, VR becomes very useful esp when the shot you're looking for vanish in a blink of an eye (you get what i mean).

  8. #8

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    who needs VR with f1.4!
    Nikon D80|AF-S DX 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G|AF-S VR 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G|AF 85mm f1.8D|SB-900
    Neobux

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside the Dry Box.
    Posts
    16,268

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by ramboo24 View Post
    who needs VR with f1.4!
    funny... u mean u guys only shoot wide open?
    Logging Off. "You have 2,631 messages stored, of a total 400 allowed." don't PM me.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    sometimes you're indoors, AND you need the deeper depth of field... i'll opt for both.
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    big tree town
    Posts
    2,389

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    from what i see above the point is what the user will wanna shoot.

    if it's the matter of the "freezing the subject" at a certain shutter speed or to acheive certain bokeh (or sharpness), then wide aperture is the way.

    if it's the matter of just take out the camera and shoot, then probably the VR will be more useful (assuming the shaky hand will be a problem here).

    ok great, this thread served it's purpose. thanks for the input.
    cameras are not made of tofu

  12. #12
    Moderator Cactus jACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Singapore (Kallang)
    Posts
    3,933
    Blog Entries
    23

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    for some lenses, it's not one or the other... you can have both!!!

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Outside the Dry Box.
    Posts
    16,268

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Cactus jACK View Post
    for some lenses, it's not one or the other... you can have both!!!
    not can... U NEED BOTH!

    70-200f2.8 VR haha...

    seriously thou... doesn't mean f1.4 no need VR, the f1.4 is good for you to focus faster since it is brighter. But if you need f8 or f16, for a certain scene, then it will be 1/4 or 1/20, then how? VR come into place...
    Logging Off. "You have 2,631 messages stored, of a total 400 allowed." don't PM me.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    big tree town
    Posts
    2,389

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    yar, how we wish a Nikon F2.8 18-200mm VR.

    Most prob I will sell away all my lenses to get it!

    Anyway thanks for the input.
    cameras are not made of tofu

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Jurong Island
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Fotophilic View Post
    yar, how we wish a Nikon F2.8 18-200mm VR.

    Most prob I will sell away all my lenses to get it!

    Anyway thanks for the input.
    I bet you probably won't do that. Its going to be a huge lens, if they can produce it. Imagine twice the size of a 70-200 f2.8 handheld.

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    big tree town
    Posts
    2,389

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Lmodel View Post
    I bet you probably won't do that. Its going to be a huge lens, if they can produce it. Imagine twice the size of a 70-200 f2.8 handheld.
    well... u nv know.... I believe Nikon won't be so unmarketing to produce a monster at this range, knowing that likely people using this range won't like so titanic lenses. As tech improves, maybe till then....
    cameras are not made of tofu

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Jurong Island
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Fotophilic View Post
    well... u nv know.... I believe Nikon won't be so unmarketing to produce a monster at this range, knowing that likely people using this range won't like so titanic lenses. As tech improves, maybe till then....
    Precisely that's why they never even think of coming up with a 18-200 f2.8 lens.

    It might happens but probably not in our generation. The 80-200 f2.8 has been around for more than a decade ago and the 70-200 doesnt seems to be any smaller.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Volcano Land
    Posts
    2,351

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Mmm. A question of physics perhaps? I don't think it can be realistically be made any smaller. Unless sensors become even smaller than they already are.

  19. #19

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Yatlapball View Post
    Mmm. A question of physics perhaps? I don't think it can be realistically be made any smaller. Unless sensors become even smaller than they already are.
    I think it's more a question of business sense.

    Anything is possible as long as there's money to be made

    nowadays the market is determined by demand and supply.

    So we won't be seeing any of this lenses unless there's enough people willing to fork out that kind of money
    Nikon D80|AF-S DX 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G|AF-S VR 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G|AF 85mm f1.8D|SB-900
    Neobux

  20. #20

    Default Re: VR or F2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Del_CtrlnoAlt View Post
    not can... U NEED BOTH!

    70-200f2.8 VR haha...

    seriously thou... doesn't mean f1.4 no need VR, the f1.4 is good for you to focus faster since it is brighter. But if you need f8 or f16, for a certain scene, then it will be 1/4 or 1/20, then how? VR come into place...
    yeah you're right, some scences which require f8 or f16 VR would be good but in those cases i'd would be using tripod.

    I have a VR lens too and it helps alot especially when i zoom 300mm.

    but it's not fair to compare wide aperture and VR function as they are 2 different things altogether.

    one complements the other but cannot replace the other

    If only f1.4 lens and VR... beautiful bokeh plus sharpness... droolz
    Nikon D80|AF-S DX 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G|AF-S VR 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G|AF 85mm f1.8D|SB-900
    Neobux

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •