VR versus fast lens

[kylelam77]

Dear Gurus,

Am in a dilemma and need ur advice. I need an all purpose lens that is able to take pics in low light for instance in a room with some light and yet not be able to use flash. Given my options, i was debating whether to get a VR 18-200mm or VR 16-85mm lens both of which possess VR but are not terribly fast especially on the tele-end. As Nikon represents, VR allows one to take pics 3-4 stops "faster". Wld this equate to a lens like the 17-55mm f2.8 for instance? Or wld a f2.8 lens be "better" for taking pics in such conditions. Pls note that i'm not referring to rooms which are pitch dark since no amt of VR or bright lens cld overcome that. Just wanted to seek opinions of those who may hv had similar dilemmas as myself.

Info on my preferences & lenses

I don't care much for portraits & bokeh since i already hv a prime lens for that. My current kit lens 18-70mm is pretty good in good lighting but does rather poorly in less than ideal lighting conditions (although pushing up the iso to 1250/1600 does the trick in most situations).

Any advice wld be much appreciated. Tks & Happy New Yr in advance!

 

[giantcanopy]

Larger aperture / fast lens

You can take shots with thinner DOF and isolate your subject from background better than a smaller aperture lens ( with or without VR )

You can potentially shoot under lower lightshandheld ( ok depends on settings but you probably do not need to bump up the ISO as much as a smaller aperture ) But at a larger aperture do not expect much DOF.

You can increase shutter speed and freeze motion. You cannot do that with a smaller aperture at VR with same ISO settings since the subject will probably not wait for ur VR/IS and the longer exposure.

The autofocusing mechanism works better with glasses with larger aperture. Under dim conditions, AF will be more reliable at f2.8 glass than f5.6. If AF starts hunting, it will hunt with f5.6 first.

They are usually expensive and heavy. ( usually ). The f 2.8 glasses ( especially for zooms ) are usually the higher end offerings of the companies. The IQs are usually better.

VR

You do have some handholding advantage under dimmer lights compared to a similar small aperture cousin without VR. But of course again a limit to how long it can stabilise. Nothing beats a tripod. If your subject is relatively static, it is beneficial.

Drains quite abit of power as well, and adds additional weight and price.

 

[ortega]

buy a D700/D3

 

[ortega]

seriously, i'd go for a fast lens over VR anytime

 

[giantcanopy]

Was about to add. I would prefer a fast lens as well.

Of course. A fast lens with VR is sweet

 

[zac08]

A Fast lens anytime....

 

[zcf]

prefer fast lens like (Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4) over anti shake function also. As fast lens can provide faster shutter speed (with same ISO setting), while even with anti shake function, your subject may move and cause motion blur. But my camera already come with anti shake sensor, so this no longer a problem for me.

 

[Leong23]

fast lenses for me too.

 

[raghnall]

Definitely fast lens for me too!!

 

[Nerd]

all purpose lens that is able to take pics in low light for instance in a room with some light and yet not be able to use flash

Sounds like you're looking at something faster than f2.8. But those lenses usually comes as a prime only option, unless you're using Olympus in which there's the f/2 zooms.

Too often I find that even a f2.8 lense in dim conditions don't focus all that fast or accurately unless you have a pro bodyl. But it's highly dependant on your environment and subject matter. Without a doubt, f1.4 lenses are way better if you have a need for higher shutter speed in low light conditions for any reasons (subject matter could be moving perhaps?)

Why don't you take a look at what kind of aperture/shutter/iso settings you're currently using for your low-light setup and see if you're getting subject-motion blur (people moving?) or is the background blur (handshake). If it's the latter, then get a lense with VR, if it's the former, then get a faster lense than either the 18-200 or the 16-85

Just my 2 cents

 

[dw8888]

I think it depend, if you want the subject to be clear and don't care how is the background Or you want the subject and background equally able to see.
I think most people go for Fast len.

 

[AlexK]

Similar to most bros, fast lens is also my choice.:thumbsup:

 

[erictan8888]

fast lens....
and note: fast lens plus tripod is like fast lens with VR...

but VR cannot and has no way to increase aperature....

moreover the sweet spot of every lens is a stop or two down....
which means your VR lens will lose out to the fast lens...

go get a fast lens... you won't regret it...

 

[Fotophilic]

I'm no guru. But i think i can add a bit on what others have said.

VR and F2.8 has different applications. If u shoot things in dark that moves, F2.8 and tripod is the model answer.

If u shoot things that do not move and u don't use tripod, in general, VR is very useful. F2.8 lenses can give u a faster shutter speed. Of coz, faster speed will compensate it as we all know, but is it enough? hard to say. I have nv seen u b4, i don't how serious ur hand shakes. The answer is quite grey actually.

When shooting interior archi, and u use say example F7.1 (or smaller). Here, VR comes in very well. Using F2.8 wide open is not advisable due to DOF, in this case.

Since u have primes, can u use the fast primes to do things in low lighting? A cheap 50 1.8 can give u very big aperture already. quite handy. of coz, i know sometimes the focal length issue is a problem, but that is another story.

For me, i prefer F2.8 to VR. But that is for the things i shoot and my preference. You may be different. If ur prime can help at that low lighting, moving object part, i guess a VR lens maybe the answer for u.

 

[azzurri]

If your concern is over the tele-end of the 18-200mm VR or 16-85mm VR then I think you have the ideal lens in the form of the 70-200mm VR; especially when you need the tele-end of the 18-200mm VR. Not only is it an f2.8 at 200mm, it also has VR.

The decision on whether you need a fast lens or VR basically boils down to what you shoot. If you take a lot of static shots like stuff in the museum etc, you will be better off with the VR. If you shoot a lot of faster moving subjects, the faster lens will be a better option.

 

[kylelam77]

Wow. Tks for all the feedback. The things i shoot are mainly pretty static. They range from landscape to shots of people (who intentionally pose). I wish i cld get a pro body but can't afford so going to stick to my trusty D70 for now.

 

[thenomad]

If u r shooting landscape, u generally want more DOF, so VR may be better.
Shooting portraits, usually less DOF to isolate your subject, so fast lens is better.

It boils down to what subjects u r shooting.
If shooting indoors but u need a lot of DOF, then a fast lens will not help u, as u won't be using it's wide aperture in the first place. A VR will help here.
But if u want to freeze action and don't need a lot of DOF, a fast lens will allow u to do that.

If u really need a fast zoom, 70-200 f/2.8 VR can help, but very ex.

 

[zac08]

If u r shooting landscape, u generally want more DOF, so VR may be better.
Shooting portraits, usually less DOF to isolate your subject, so fast lens is better.

It boils down to what subjects u r shooting.
If shooting indoors but u need a lot of DOF, then a fast lens will not help u, as u won't be using it's wide aperture in the first place. A VR will help here.
But if u want to freeze action and don't need a lot of DOF, a fast lens will allow u to do that.

If u really need a fast zoom, 70-200 f/2.8 VR can help, but very ex.

With Landscapes, you'll likely be using a tripod, then VR is not required or aka useless...

As for portraits, a fast lens is your best bet.

 

[lovells19]

I choose fast lens over VR anytime

 

[waykeong]

good info.. now i know the VR doesn't work as good as fast lenses if shooting moving objects :>