This content has been marked as final.
Show 30 replies
-
1. Re: IS/VR lenses
(Peter_Figen) Mar 22, 2008 1:14 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)VR is designed to help negate camera movement, but does little or nothing for subject movement. I know that the Canons and probably the Nikons too, have a switch to turn off the stabilization in one direction to allow for panning. -
2. Re: IS/VR lenses
greenjumpyone Mar 22, 2008 1:19 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Peter,
what I am most concerned about is when I am panning with a subject. I *could* be introducing camera shake. Would the VR help against that? Or is it just that I have to make sure my panning technique is done in such a way that *I* reduce the shakiness? ;)
Then again, with a 2.8 aperture, I can have the shutter speed faster and that should make up for potential slight shake issues?? -
3. Re: IS/VR lenses
(Peter_Figen) Mar 22, 2008 2:46 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Usually the idea of panning with a moving object is to actually blur the background to give a sense of motion. To do that effectively you need to use a slow shutter speed, not a fast one. That's why modern IS and VR lenses let you turn off the VR in the horizontal plane - to let the background blur. Personally, I just turn it off entirely when panning, but that's my preference. In the Nikon lenses, everyone says that the 70-200VR is a better lens optically than the 80-200, so that would be my choice, but of course it's more expensive. You won't regret having VR when you need it and there will definitly be times where you wish you had it if you buy the non VR lens.
Just to note that if you go for the 80-200, that many, many great and classic panning shot were take before we even had the option. It only takes practice. -
4. Re: IS/VR lenses
Fred Nirque Mar 23, 2008 1:57 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)>In the Nikon lenses, everyone says that the 70-200VR is a better lens optically than the 80-200
Not everyone - I refuse to trade up my venerable 1993 version of the 80-200 on a 70-200 VR because it is absolutely one of the best lenses I've ever owned. I realise I may have lucked it in for an "on spec" one, but at least that does prove to me that the design is sound.
I compensate for lack of VR with a monopod in low light (which also aids no end in keeping the camera level when panning and is far preferable to VR in that situation), and if in a place where the monopod is verboten I use my 105mm for its VR capability instead. Every time I contemplate trading that 80-200 the thing turns out an image or three which are faultless as if to dissuade me. It is also the only one of my lenses that I am confident in using wide open as a matter of course.
GH, VR was primarily designed to reduce camera shake at lower shutter speeds in low light situations rather than as an aid in panning - as Peter indicates, the best cure for shaky panning is lots of practice. Give a monopod a try as well. -
5. Re: IS/VR lenses
greenjumpyone Mar 23, 2008 3:26 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)My panning technique really isn't so bad (by my standards anyway! ;)), I was just wondering if the VR assists when using the camera in such a way. If I can use the monopod with the long lens and still pan, then I think I will be in good shape with the non-VR version of the lens (for now! ;)).
My biggest issue has been in trying to take photos indoors, in lighting similar to a gymnasium and having a lens that will only open up to 5.6 on the long end.
I actually use a reasonable (as can be achieved) shutter speed because I do want to get the stop action on the panning. -
6. Re: IS/VR lenses
Nick Decker Mar 23, 2008 6:08 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)GH, I have one VR lens, the 18-200mm. The VR on it can be set to Normal (for when the camera isn't moving) or Active (when shooting on the move, like from a car or airplane). I haven't noticed that the Active setting gives me much; when shooting aerials I far prefer a faster lens that allows me to use a faster shutter speed. -
7. Re: IS/VR lenses
LRK 2 Mar 23, 2008 6:53 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)Hi GH!
As you know, I love my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 with IS. It was expensive, and is heavy (as Cindy warned), but it's been worth every penny (and pound). :-)
Linda -
8. Re: IS/VR lenses
greenjumpyone Mar 23, 2008 8:12 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)I think I'll go with the non-VR lens for now. The biggest thing I need is that 2.8!! -
9. Re: IS/VR lenses
Fred Nirque Mar 23, 2008 4:26 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Try that 80-200 first if at all possible, GH. As I said, I may have just lucked it in for a good one for as Peter points out many think that the 70-200 is a better lens - which indicates some basis in fact of a variation between examples of the lens (or maybe they are only justifying spending twice as much money for the 70-200 VR! :-) ).
As an example of what my well-used 15-year old 80-200 AF-D turns up in normal use, this is was taken during a typically hectic wedding last Saturday, 125mm 1/800 @ f/2.8 hand held with a bit of fill flash to soften up the harsh direct sunlight from 3/4 rear:
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1UjcigCQDMqcfnLA4egW8vcLuXikY0 -
10. Re: IS/VR lenses
Allen Wicks Mar 24, 2008 8:30 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)Both are fine lenses.
IMO (in general, because specific individual lenses vary like Fred says) most folks will always get better handheld pix (e.g. wedding candids) with the 70-200 VR rather than the 80-200. The VR does add a couple of stops, which means a couple of stops faster shutter speed at any given aperture.
IMO when pix taken are on a solid tripod or in bright sunlight (like Fred's example pic) there is little or no benefit to VR, and non-VR lenses can perform just as well.
Personally I use Nikon's VR 70-200mm f/2.8 and absolutely love it. However I am fairly strong 200 pound male, and the 80-200 or 70-200mm f/2.8 used with a D2x or D3 are heavy enough that using them handheld is a bit challenging. For those folks who would need to always use such a lens on a tripod or at least a monopod the VR may not be worth the cost.
Moving subjects often require handheld, and for handheld VR is of great value. Whether VR is worth the US$700 additional cost IMO depends on personal finances as well as on whether or not one intends to handhold.
>I have an offer to purchase a similar lens (80-200. 2.8 ) w/o VR
sounds like a used lens. If so, take it into a camera store and physically shoot it against a 70-200VR and take the pix home and analyze them. Personally I would seldom consider a used zoom lens, because zoom optics include mechanical componentry that does get looser with use. That said, I do have a 24-85mm Nikon lens that still shoots very well after hard usage for a decade; repaired once by Nikon after I dropped it. -
11. Re: IS/VR lenses
greenjumpyone Mar 24, 2008 2:02 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Thanks for all the ideas and information. :)
I fully trust the individual that I am getting the lens from, so I am not worried about the quality of the used lens. In this case, I look at it this way: my friend did all the test driving and found the lens to be a fine lens. :D -
12. Re: IS/VR lenses
(Peter_Figen) Mar 24, 2008 3:08 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)I shot a lot of jobs with my Nikon 80-200 2.8 and it was a wonderful lens. Actually, I still have it and have put it on my Canon with an adapter just to see how it stacks up to the current crop of Canon lenses, and like so many other Nikon lenses, it does very well. Have fun with it. -
13. Re: IS/VR lenses
greenjumpyone Mar 24, 2008 3:15 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)If all goes well, I'll have it for a dog show this weekend. :) -
14. Re: IS/VR lenses
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Mar 25, 2008 8:14 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)Is the extra $1000 or so for the 2.8 version really worth it for the landscape photographer? I almost never drop below 5.6 when shooting, even hand held.
Since my base lens is the 18 to 135, going only to 200mm and spending 1800 bucks seems a bit excessive. -
15. Re: IS/VR lenses
(clifford_hager) Mar 25, 2008 12:36 PM (in response to Hudechrome-sd9sPI)> Is the extra $1000 or so for the 2.8 version really worth it for the
> landscape photographer? I almost never drop below 5.6 when shooting, even
> hand held.
Lawarance, I love my 80-200 2.8VR nad I use it extensively at 2.8 for low
light shots. With the VR turned on I have achieved sucessfull hand held
shots as low as 1/5 second. That said, the glass is extremely sharp,
especially from about 5.6 to 18 and better than average above and below
that.
If you're happy with 5.6 and up, there probably isn't any reason to spend
the money for the higher speed. It's all in what you shoot! -
16. Re: IS/VR lenses
Fred Nirque Mar 25, 2008 1:31 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)The brighter viewfinder image is worth the bucks as much as anything else, IMO. With the exception of the f/4 12-24 DX Nikkor, all my lenses are 2.8 or better for that reason, having tried slower and invariably traded up for faster after a short time.
In anticipation of a new D3, I'm hunting up a 17-35mm f/2.8 to do the job that the 12-24 does on the D2x (only brighter... :-) ).
The increased weight factor is a significant drawback of the wider aperture lenses, though - the 17-35 is 26 oz compared to the 12-24 at 17 oz.
My original 70-210mm f/4-5.6 was 21 oz, but the 80-200mm f/2.8 I replaced it with after 6 weeks of disappointment is 46 oz. I suffer that penalty gladly, though. -
17. Re: IS/VR lenses
(Peter_Figen) Mar 25, 2008 1:40 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)It took me a long time to understand why some people spent seemingly huge amounts of money for very little extra benefit. As I've progressed as a photographer, I can now more appreciate what spending an extra $1200 on an 85mm lens to get to f/1.2, because there's nothing quite like shooting that lens wide open, just as there's nothing quite like a 200mm 1.8, which a lot of folks have no problem laying down four thousand or more dollars for. For me, it's usually a particular look that a certain lens has that prompts the purchase. The Contax 21mm Distagon has a certain look that nothing else has and it's one of the sharpest lenses made for 35mm. Is it worth $3000 used? I'm also in the middle of adapting a Minolta 58mm 1.2 over to the Canon. It's apart right now and I have to have approximately .75mm machined off the adapter for infinity focus. It's a lens that is supposed to be just beautiful wide open, and it was worth $400 for me to find out.
It's all like Jackson Browne explaining on his latest record how in the early days he didn't understand about needing more than one guitar, but he gets it now... -
18. Re: IS/VR lenses
Nick Decker Mar 25, 2008 2:18 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Well said, Peter. -
19. Re: IS/VR lenses
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Mar 25, 2008 2:48 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)I can dig the musical analogy. Chopin owned two pianos. Now, at the quality level I would want before going for a second piano, we are talking a cool $75,000 to 100,000 ea!
That's being obsessive! :D
The loss of brightness in the viewfinder is understandable, and my very well be the difference over which the split the hair. My assumption (theoretical obviously!) is that the only difference is a wider aperture which remains constant over the F/L range. Fred reminds me of the difference between the 80mm f2.8 and the 250mm f5.6 on the Hasselblad. But, I actually preferred the 5.6 max during daylight hours. The image more closely resembled the tonal qualities I would be after. The 2.8 was excessively bright! -
20. Re: IS/VR lenses
Fred Nirque Mar 25, 2008 3:04 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)And if I had the cash....
there's a rare second-hand Zeiss Telephoto Power Pack combo for FE Hasselblad come up for sale second-hand locally - 300mm f/2.8 Tele-Superachromat , with dedicated Apo-Mutar1.7x adapter for a 500mm f/4.8 conversion. I've heard that the result shot wide open on its 120 format is simply breathtaking. At around $8,500 it is an absolute bargain (they were well over $20K new, built to order).
Weight? - just under 9lbs! -
21. Re: IS/VR lenses
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Mar 25, 2008 3:16 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Ugh!
Without Tech Pan, forget it! -
22. Re: IS/VR lenses
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Mar 25, 2008 3:21 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)i Weight? - just under 9lbs!
And here I am, thinking about a summer weight sleeping bag and trying to decide between one weighing 19 oz and another weighing 26oz! (My regular bag is 33 oz, but even at 15F was rather warm!) -
23. Re: IS/VR lenses
Allen Wicks Mar 25, 2008 7:24 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)> The brighter viewfinder image is worth the bucks as much as anything else, IMO. With the exception of the f/4 12-24 DX Nikkor, all my lenses are 2.8 or better for that reason, having tried slower and invariably traded up for faster after a short time.
Me too. Rather than the 17-35 in anticipation of a D3, I am lusting after the 24-70 f/2.8. -
24. Re: IS/VR lenses
Hudechrome-sd9sPI Mar 25, 2008 9:19 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Yeah, well, you ain't over 70 and still wanting to schlepp the same stuff up 5000' or more as if you were 35!
Maybe I get myself an ***...ooops! Donkey! -
25. Re: IS/VR lenses
greenjumpyone Mar 26, 2008 3:06 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)wooohoooo! I got my lens today! I now own my own "bazooka"! ;)
I'll try to put it to a test later, maybe taking some photos of my canine babies (I don't think the human ones will tolerate me as well as the dogs will! ;)). -
26. Re: IS/VR lenses
Fred Nirque Mar 26, 2008 4:52 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)You'll love using it, guaranteed. -
27. Re: IS/VR lenses
LRK 2 Mar 26, 2008 6:03 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Congratulations Hopper! Can't wait to see some of your shots. -
28. Re: IS/VR lenses
mrsdu Mar 26, 2008 8:14 PM (in response to greenjumpyone)Congrats Hopper, looking forward to more 'puppy' pics :) -
29. Re: IS/VR lenses
greenjumpyone Mar 27, 2008 2:16 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)well, I did take *one* photo last night ... ;) <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1z0dMmZrvZwthIgZcqiUuuejlO9jB1" target="_blank" /></a> <img src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1z0dMmZrvZwthIgZcqiUuuejlO9jB1_thumb.jpg" border="0" /> -
30. Re: IS/VR lenses
(Q_Photo) Mar 28, 2008 1:38 AM (in response to greenjumpyone)New photography equipment Life is good.
Congrads Hopper.
Q


