Nikon VR

[Libby]

I currently have a Nikon N80 with the 28-105 lens, and I decided it was time to upgrade. Quite tired of the noisy lenses I've gotten off Nikon (Also had a 35-70 one a while back) and the horrible AF hunting in low light, I decided to give Canon a try. I purchased a new Elan 7NE with the 24-105 lens.. which failed after 3 uses. I LOVED how quiet it was though, and when the AF worked at all it didn't hunt like the Nikon. I don't know how much my problems with Nikon are the lens the body or just its reputation, but I know I need something more.. It was the Canon's 24-105 F/4, that really drew me to the switch, but now I'm back at ground 0 and I don't know what to try next. Nikon doesn't seem to have a midrange zoom comparable to Canon, and honestly I really don't want to lug around multiple lenses. I did run across the 70-300 F3.5-5.6 VR, and according to reviews has great color and is sharp.. but oh MY is that sloooooooooooooooow 5.6?! So my question is, does that VR really make up for the 5.6? Does it work even when the subject itself is moving (ie concert) and not just camera shake?

I got another job next weekend, and I have to move quickly..

 

[airgunr]

I've got the 70-200mm f2.8 VR and it is very fast and have not had a problem with it hunting in most situations. Personnally I have not found the Nikkors to be particularly noisy vs any of the Cannons I have tried. Although I am still a film shooter and not digital so I don't know if that may be a factor somehow.

I also have the 80-400mm f4 - 5.6 VR Nikkor and while it is a little slower it is an excellent lens as well.

 

[Libby]

Thanks for replying. I'm still using film too. Both my 28-105 and the 35-70 (especially the 28-105) are VERY noisy.. 24-105 Canon is COMPLETELY silent most of the time. I actually had to pull it off my face to make sure it was actually moving/working at one point. My experience anyway.. Have you ever tried shooting a concert or an event indoors with low light on the VR?

Also.. anyone know what happens when trying to take a DX lens to a 35mm? I was looking at the 18-200 as a general purpose lens but I don’t want to invest in a Nikon DSLR. If I go DSLR it will for sure be Canon.

 

[Mike_E]

Hi Libby, your rectangular photos turn circular. The DX lenses won't cover the whole frame of a 35mm Neg.

You might try Borrowing an F100 and trying one of the new S lenses. The F100 for better Auto-focus and the S for "silent wave". The S lenses are quieter. I don't know your budget but the F100s have gotten really inexpensive, you might even splurge and get an F5.

mike

 

[Libby]

Ewwwww okay good to know.. won't be going with a DX lens then..

Well.. I'm trying to stay $1k or less right now. I was looking at the 28-70 F/2.8 but omg $1500.. is it really worth it?

 

[xfloggingkylex]

to respond to a question that wasn't answered:

Yes, IS (Image stabilization, general here) is great, but it does NOT help freeze a moving subject. The only thing that can stop action is a faster shutter speed. Two things can stop camera shake, a faster shutter speed and IS, but understand, IS allows you to handhold at a slower shutter speed which means subject blur is still there.

 

[fmw]

but oh MY is that sloooooooooooooooow 5.6?! So my question is, does that VR really make up for the 5.6? Does it work even when the subject itself is moving (ie concert) and not just camera shake?

VR advertises that it allows you to hand hold the camera successfully with up to two stops worth of slower shutter speed than a similar lens without it. My experience is that this is correct. I get this kind of result with my own VR lens. If can hand hold a lens at, say 1/250 second without motion blur, the VR will allow you to use 1/60 with the same result. I consider that a big deal, by the way. Whether that "makes up for f5.6" depends on many factors. You will need to answer that for yourself. As mentioned above, it helps prevent camera shake. It has no way to affect motion blur due to subject motion. Only a faster shutter speed will reduce subject motion blur.