Is a f2.8 lens better or a VR/IS lens better?


Status
Not open for further replies.

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,491
10
38
#1
In other words, faster lens, versus slower lens but with VR(Nikon) or IS(Canon).

Thanx.
 

attap seed

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2006
589
0
16
41
#2
they are different things.

fast lens allows hi shutter and DOF control.

VR/IS allow hand holding at lower shutter speed.

fast lens wun help if u need to stop down to achieve DOF and/or achieve lower shutter speed to achieve certain effect (and dun ve the use of a tripod).

VR/IS wun help if despite using the biggest aperture, the shutter is still insufficient to freeze the movement.
 

MarkTan89

New Member
Jun 30, 2007
591
0
0
Boon Keng
#3
I would go for f/2.8, however if its f/2.8 IS then it'll be the perfect combination! IS' effectiveness is also dependent on the maximum aperture of the lens. If it's say f/5.6 at the farthest end then IS won't help much in low-light conditions. However, a constant f/4 IS is more useable compared to f/3.5 - f/5.6 IS especially when zoomed in. Hope I make sense here :)
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#4
You can find the same discussion here :
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=395247

2.8
- capable of thinner dof, can isolate subject from background better compared to a smaller aperture lens ( depending on what you are shooting )
- can potentially shoot under lower lights handheld ( depends on settings )
- can increase shutter speed and freeze motion
but expensive, heavy ( usually )
* the 2.8 glasses ( especially for zooms ) are usually the higher end offerings of the companies. The IQs are usually better.

VR
- some handholding advantage as well especially dimmer lights
but expensive, and comparing to a larger aperture, while you can afford a slightly slower shutter speed, there will be some motion blur depending on ur subjects.
Draws abit of power as well.
* there is a limit to how much VR can save ur shakiness

Ryan
 

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,491
10
38
#5
I am trying to decide between at 18-200mm VR and 17-55mm f2.8 actually. Thanx for all advise. I know its very different lens, but I actually seldom zoom more than 70mm, though the 18-200mm is very versatile...
 

MarkTan89

New Member
Jun 30, 2007
591
0
0
Boon Keng
#6
I don't really fancy superzooms i.e 18-200, 28-300 because they are compromised in their image quality especially at the longest tele end.
 

megaweb

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
8,541
3
38
East
megaweb.clubsnap.org
#7
Is a f2.8 lens better or a VR/IS lens better?
Depend on situation
I find indoor or low lighting condition, wide angle prime and VR lens are very useful and recommended. So far my best lens for indoor is 70-200 IS. I could easily get sharp shots @ 1/60sec.
 

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,491
10
38
#8
Just realised the price of the 17-55mm is too fantastic for me. Maybe look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8.
 

kisim

New Member
Jan 29, 2008
286
0
0
www.fullframejournal.com
#9
the price difference between 18-200 and 17-55 is very big, almost $1k.
Is money a major consideration here?
if not, buy 17-55 F2.8, and 70-200 F2.8 VR. :devil:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom