OK, I am about to spend some $$$$ on a camera(and lens). The lens I am looking at is the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor. I am also finding same lens in a VR II version. Nikon website states "VR II system offers the equivalent of using a shutter speed 4 stops faster." I am camera stupid, so what does this mean and is the VR II better than the VR version? Help me out here. How in the world do you ever finally decide what to get?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Nikon lens question
Collapse
X
-
texag, I'm no expert, but I went through the same questions a while back, and the answers I got made sense. VR, IS, VC, or whatever the manufacturer calls the vibration reduction technology is helpful if you shoot lower light STATIONARY subjects like landscapes, portraits, and such. If you are shooting sports, running animals, flying birds, or anything else that is moving, the VR technology won't "give you more f/stops". You need a fast shutter to stop motion, and if you don't have enough light you can't get a good exposure without slowing the shutter down. If the subject is moving fast, then it's going to be blurred whether you have a VR lens or not.
VR will reduce or eliminate camera shake when you hand hold it on slower shutter speeds, and the pic will be sharp if the subject isn't moving. So you have to decide what kind of shots you'll be taking mostly. If you shoot mostly moving subjects, then spend extra dollars on a faster lens (lower f/stop like 2.8 or lower). If you shoot mostly stationary subjects, then maybe the extra money spent on VR would be the better deal.
Or......you can be like MesquiteCountry Travis (Mr. Smarty Pants) and get an f/2.8 with IS too. (Yeah, I'm jealous!)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shane View Post.................Or......you can be like MesquiteCountry Travis (Mr. Smarty Pants) and get an f/2.8 with IS too. (Yeah, I'm jealous!)
Jason I still like my 12 x 50 Nikons but use my Vortex more.
Missed you at the CS get together Friday BTW.
Comment
-
My take on image stablization is that at slower shutter speeds the lens will actually move enough to catch up to your target and freeze it as the shutter exposes the image. So something at 1/60 of a second f-11 might be considered 1/125 of a second at f-8. On handheld shots in low light you can actually see blur or camera shake in pics without the IS VR or whatever on. Turn it on and you can see a definite improvement. The lens has a motor in it that very briefly retains position long enough for an exposure even though you move the camera slightly when pressing the shutter button.
I don't know Nikon but a 4 stop claim is huge!
On the otherhand when mounted on a tripod I have to shut the IS off on my Canon stuff. If I have it on and freeze the focus by holding down the shutter button halfway I can actually see the lens moving through the view finder. This is noticable on birds that move around a lot. So a stationary camera and a moving lens doesn't work as well as a moving camera and a moving lens.
Pics with the IS on and on a tripod are usually not the best in focus. In my experience.
Besides, the instructions say to turn it off on a tripod.
Having done a lot more film SLR work than DSLR I must say that the IS is definite benefit.
It's weird seeing an image moving around in the view finder but that's sort of how it works.
Sorry.
Comment
-
Ok I'm still trying to put together my ultimate D40 package... With the talk of lenses here I'm back to looking again. How much difference will f/4-5.6G make over f/4.5-6.0G in the 70-300mm lense in low light situtations? The cost difference between the two is $198.00... I keep going back and forth wondering if I'll regret going the cheaper route.
Comment
Comment