Nikon 50mm vs. 18-200mm VR

[shingfan]

was doing test shots of the 50mm vs. the 18-200mm VR...both at 50mm with shutter at 1/60....man....the 18-200mm is really worth the extra bucks....the VR does a very nice job.....the image looks at lot better at 1/60 shutter.........i guess it is a pretty good lense after all......but the 50mm do focus faster than the 18-200mm lense that i notice

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I would use the 50 prime if I need low light performance, portraits, and thin DOF. I'd use my 35-70 f/2.8 or 24-120 VR for everything else.

 

[shingfan]

yes....for low light and DOF....i would probably use the prime lense as well.....but only down to as low as 1/100 as shutter....i guess my hands are not steady enough to work with shutter speed that is too low at 50mm....didnt realize that until i test them both today....(i guess my hands are getting old...lol)

 

[Jeremy Z]

I bet if you went up to 1/90s and were careful to be steady, the 50mm would be better. There's no reason it shouldn't be, aside from a shaky photographer...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Right, i've gotten crystal clear shots off my 24-120 at 1/10th of a second, but you can't stop motion at 1/10th of a second at f/5.6.

 

[shingfan]

I bet if you went up to 1/90s and were careful to be steady, the 50mm would be better. There's no reason it shouldn't be, aside from a shaky photographer...

yes...why i stated that i can go down to as low as 1/100 probably....but not too low......if i need to go any less...than iwould need the VR as an aid....and with the VR...i can do fine at 1/20 no problem