VR or f2.8
- Thread starter zenman49
- Start date
- Status
i am big fan of 2.8!! have two lenses with 2.8 and simply love the diff in IQ they bring v/s other 3.5 or 4 etc lenses (not sure if VR can actually deliver 2.8 equivalent pics even tho the maths seems to support it)
perhaps someone who has an ample collection of both could provide some good feedback too...? :think:
perhaps someone who has an ample collection of both could provide some good feedback too...? :think:
VR works well for still subjects.
2.8 allows you use faster shutter speeds throughout the zoom range of the lens.
So it really depends on what you want to shoot.
Best is VR + 2.8!
Generally 2.8 lens are higher quality so therefore you get higher quality images from the lens too. It also boils down to what you are willing to pay for.
VR can be found in cheaper and expensive lens.
2.8 lens are generally expensive.
2.8 allows you use faster shutter speeds throughout the zoom range of the lens.
So it really depends on what you want to shoot.
Best is VR + 2.8!
Generally 2.8 lens are higher quality so therefore you get higher quality images from the lens too. It also boils down to what you are willing to pay for.
VR can be found in cheaper and expensive lens.
2.8 lens are generally expensive.
I will take F2.8 over VRf3.5 anytime. The responsivness of a fast lens is somthing I want and appreciate having. I need lenses to be fast (in focusing) and is able to freeze action and that must come from a brighter lense.
VR addresses shake which is a good feature but NOT at the expense of aperture.
Firstly, u need to be a little more specific leh. It is a little bit weird to compare, one needs to look at specific lenses.
However that being said you can compare on broadstrokes. Personally, i do prefer a 2.8 lense over Vr. I would not personally pay extra for something just because its VR. I think VR is really worth it in those prime telephoto lenses.
Why 2.8? as far as i can tell, constant aperture lenses usually have a better quality build and are thus usually sharper. a constant aperture also means one doesnt have to worry when u use the tele end of the zoom that you have to deal with a smaller aperture.
So in my opinion, its more worth it to pay for the 2.8 where you get the low light capability together with the quality where the VR is just an add on.
Its like the BMW m3 vs the subaru. the m3 is naturally aspirated no need turbo charger all. there is a hell alot of quality in that engine. where as the subaru needs the turbo charger to kick in to help the not as powerful engine along to match the M3. but then of course there is the matter of the $$. hahah
However that being said you can compare on broadstrokes. Personally, i do prefer a 2.8 lense over Vr. I would not personally pay extra for something just because its VR. I think VR is really worth it in those prime telephoto lenses.
Why 2.8? as far as i can tell, constant aperture lenses usually have a better quality build and are thus usually sharper. a constant aperture also means one doesnt have to worry when u use the tele end of the zoom that you have to deal with a smaller aperture.
So in my opinion, its more worth it to pay for the 2.8 where you get the low light capability together with the quality where the VR is just an add on.
Its like the BMW m3 vs the subaru. the m3 is naturally aspirated no need turbo charger all. there is a hell alot of quality in that engine. where as the subaru needs the turbo charger to kick in to help the not as powerful engine along to match the M3. but then of course there is the matter of the $$. hahah
If I were to choose, I'd go for the 2.8. Sold my 55-200mm VR for an 80-200mm f2.8.
One of the reason is already given, low light... VR will eliminate handshake but might not freeze the subject.
But if you can get the VR + 2.8 better.
now repeat after me...
VR + 2.8... VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...
One of the reason is already given, low light... VR will eliminate handshake but might not freeze the subject.
But if you can get the VR + 2.8 better.
now repeat after me...
VR + 2.8... VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...
i recently tried my bro's 17-35 f2.8. really sharp and excellent image. maybe its truth that all f2.8 lens are like these n thats why they are so xpensive?
but if we are talking about shutter speed, say when taking a stage performance, there may be case that even at f2.8 does not give you sufficient speed to freeze the dancer on stage. so VR f3.5 is better in this case?
i think DOF is out of question if we can't even get correct exposure.
but if we are talking about shutter speed, say when taking a stage performance, there may be case that even at f2.8 does not give you sufficient speed to freeze the dancer on stage. so VR f3.5 is better in this case?
i think DOF is out of question if we can't even get correct exposure.
If I were to choose, I'd go for the 2.8. Sold my 55-200mm VR for an 80-200mm f2.8.
One of the reason is already given, low light... VR will eliminate handshake but might not freeze the subject.
But if you can get the VR + 2.8 better.
now repeat after me...
VR + 2.8... VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...VR + 2.8...
i go for f2.8 with or without VR anytime, it's a no brainer answer
this quiestion has been beaten to death in clubsnap. and there is no true cut answer.
i've used F2.8 before, and i've used VR before. all i can tell you is that sometimes i need F2.8, sometimes i need VR.
i've used F2.8 before, and i've used VR before. all i can tell you is that sometimes i need F2.8, sometimes i need VR.
i would go with f/2.8 also.
VR only helps reduce the blur caused by handshake or camera movement, it does not reduce motion blur of subject. so VR will not give you sufficient speed to freeze the dancer either...in fact since the shutter speed at f/3.5 will be slower than at f/2.8, so you will get even more motion blur. if you want to shoot stage performance (without flash) you would want to use high iso instead.
hmmmm....this is a bad comparison because the is a displacement disparity...a new M3 has 414 Bhp out of a 4 L (= 103 Bhp / L), my old 5.0L Mustang had 280 BHp (= 56 BHp / L) but the Torque WOW, my old Subaru had a 2.2L and 536 BHp (= 243 BHp / L)....so, on a normalization scale, the Subaru wins....
Key question, what are you trying to take with your camera?
agreed. this statement probably sums everything most aptly.
best of course is 2.8+ VR :bsmilie:
thks all for the precious comments.
agreed that VR is designed for handshake/camera shake. (i was carried away by the 2-3 stops claim) which is more applicable for tele shooting.
so way to go is still f2.8 (or lower), which most of us agreed.
or even better both VR and f2.8.
agreed that VR is designed for handshake/camera shake. (i was carried away by the 2-3 stops claim) which is more applicable for tele shooting.
so way to go is still f2.8 (or lower), which most of us agreed.
or even better both VR and f2.8.
the f2.8 lens would probably be a more ex lens with better qual optics. lens would be heavier, focus faster. picture should be sharper, better contrast/pop, color etc...
if the intention is to take shots indoors/failing light, there are some occasions where f2.8 isnt good enough. even f1.4 wouldnt be good enough in some cases. in those situations, VR would be a better option.
if you have shaky hands, you would probably get blurred shots from 80mm onwards, therefore VR would be a good idea in this case as well.
if the intention is to take shots indoors/failing light, there are some occasions where f2.8 isnt good enough. even f1.4 wouldnt be good enough in some cases. in those situations, VR would be a better option.
if you have shaky hands, you would probably get blurred shots from 80mm onwards, therefore VR would be a good idea in this case as well.
u kind of missed the boat here. the subaru needs turbocharger and what not to get there what. its a add on. haha. anyway besides the point yah. talk about cameras not cars!
i will take the 2.8 over the VR...
besides faster spped, the bokeh from a 2.8 lens is likely to be better than the 3.5
besides faster spped, the bokeh from a 2.8 lens is likely to be better than the 3.5
- Status
Similar threads
