VR or f2.8
- Thread starter zenman49
- Start date
- Status
There are things the VR can and cannot do for you... you have to decide at the end of the day what you need to shoot...
VR is to stabilize the handshaking. It is like putting the camera on a tripod and taking a picture. Hence, you can achieve a slower shutter speed while taking a picture. At 200mm, it has saved me many photos from my handshake as a minute handshake becomes magnified at that distance. It is a wonderful feature to have!
However, a VR lens is not a fast lens (e.g. a f/2.8 lens). Even in a low light environment (without flash), you can take pictures at a slower shutter speed while it compensates the hand movements. It does not make the shutter speed go any faster (based on correct exposure), so even if your hand does not shake, the subject may have moved, and the picture still becomes blur. It is similar to putting the camera on a tripod and taking a picture in low light environment without flash.
A fast lens would have a greater aperture and allows more light into the camera, so a faster shutter speed can be achieved. A fast lens also gives a nice DOF. My ideal is to have VR on a fast lens! But if I don't have the budget to get a lens with both, I'd go for the fast lens first...
VR is to stabilize the handshaking. It is like putting the camera on a tripod and taking a picture. Hence, you can achieve a slower shutter speed while taking a picture. At 200mm, it has saved me many photos from my handshake as a minute handshake becomes magnified at that distance. It is a wonderful feature to have!
However, a VR lens is not a fast lens (e.g. a f/2.8 lens). Even in a low light environment (without flash), you can take pictures at a slower shutter speed while it compensates the hand movements. It does not make the shutter speed go any faster (based on correct exposure), so even if your hand does not shake, the subject may have moved, and the picture still becomes blur. It is similar to putting the camera on a tripod and taking a picture in low light environment without flash.
A fast lens would have a greater aperture and allows more light into the camera, so a faster shutter speed can be achieved. A fast lens also gives a nice DOF. My ideal is to have VR on a fast lens! But if I don't have the budget to get a lens with both, I'd go for the fast lens first...
For me, I'd take the VR over the 2.8 in this case since the difference is only half a stop. VR would be better for me especially when taking landscapes and still life, giving that extra 3-4 stops which makes handholding in poorer lighting conditions possible that. Even an f/2.8 lens might not be able to achieve this. For shooting fast action, the half a stop difference can be compensated much easier, a slight bump up the ISO would not have that big of an adverse effect.
Of course, this is not considering other variables such as image quality and handling of the lens. But all other things being equal, I'd take an f/3.5 with VR over an f/2.8 anytime.
Of course, this is not considering other variables such as image quality and handling of the lens. But all other things being equal, I'd take an f/3.5 with VR over an f/2.8 anytime.
I dun think VR is useful in shooting sports at all.
a f2.8 lens have constant aperature vs a f3.5 lens, the picture quality and built is something to shout about too.
Yep I agree that VR won't be useful in shooting sports. But the difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is small, and a slight bump up the ISO should make up for it easily with little loss in quality. What I'm saying is that VR would prove to be more versatile in other situations where fast shutter speed is not a priority, which I believe more people tend to use.
Of course, since f/2.8 lenses tend to be regarded as pro grade, their image quality should generally be better. However, the point of this thread is to focus on f/2.8 vs VR, in which case I would certainly take the latter.
That is the inherent problem with the question posed by the thread starter. he has not identified us the problem he faces precisely (no offence) which means we can keep argueing forever and ever. In the end, we cant look at this in a bubble where its just VR 3.5 vs 2.8.
simply because there are so many other kinds of factors to consider there are different types of VR depending on the lenses one purchases, it depends on the range one is looking at and what one is shooting for, even the body one is using and its ability to noise control.
In the end...one thing is for sure. and i think all of us can agree. the best thing is to get VR PLUS 2.8 OWNAGE!!!
just my opinions
Not all f/2.8 are pro grade lenses. I would hardly consider the 3rd-party f/2.8 zooms as pro grade.
Hi guys,
I saw this thread and think it will be an appropriate thread of rme to ask a question.
I am thinking of getting a 80-200 f2.8 OR 70-200mm F2.8 VR to replace my current 18-200mm VR.
I am tempted by the optics of the more expensive lens however being budget cautious I still wanted to spend on the best value. So far the 18-200mm VR serves me well.
My question will be, when you guys shoot with a 80-200mm, do you hand held it most of the time and shoot it in sufficient light of do you carry around a tripod? Do you get bkur shooting at 200mm?
Can the 80200 be use indoors with normal lighting? does it blur at 80?
I know the the 70200VR would be the better option but looking at the price I really needs opionions.
I saw this thread and think it will be an appropriate thread of rme to ask a question.
I am thinking of getting a 80-200 f2.8 OR 70-200mm F2.8 VR to replace my current 18-200mm VR.
I am tempted by the optics of the more expensive lens however being budget cautious I still wanted to spend on the best value. So far the 18-200mm VR serves me well.
My question will be, when you guys shoot with a 80-200mm, do you hand held it most of the time and shoot it in sufficient light of do you carry around a tripod? Do you get bkur shooting at 200mm?
Can the 80200 be use indoors with normal lighting? does it blur at 80?
I know the the 70200VR would be the better option but looking at the price I really needs opionions.
how about shooting without a tripod with a 80200?
is there any one out there who has shot with the 80200mm handheld and getting sharp pictures?
Is a tripod absolutely necessary? How about in low light?
PS: btw please refrain from asking me how much I like to spend. I am seeking for opinions on the lens itself ... Thanks
is there any one out there who has shot with the 80200mm handheld and getting sharp pictures?
Is a tripod absolutely necessary? How about in low light?
PS: btw please refrain from asking me how much I like to spend. I am seeking for opinions on the lens itself ... Thanks
Oh by the way...just to clarify ..for the both lens I was talking about they are F2.8
that is : Nikon
80 - 200mm F2.8 ( not the F3.5 -? version )
70 - 200mm F2.8 VR
If I confused anyone, I apologise.:angel:
that is : Nikon
80 - 200mm F2.8 ( not the F3.5 -? version )
70 - 200mm F2.8 VR
If I confused anyone, I apologise.:angel:
Or what does the woman controlling your life tell you?
That's why ... we man NEVER over-declare ..... =P
- Status
Similar threads
