VR/IS's application in short focal lengths...

Thirdfox

Now that Nikon has announced a VR version of the 18-55mm kit lens I was wondering what are people's thoughts on the adding of VR to these shorter focal lengths.

see here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=25686311
http://press.nikonusa.com/2007/11/new_nikon_afs_dx_nikkor_1855mm.php

I know Canon have a 18-55IS version... is it worth it getting the IS? Do people see a dramatic increase in the number of keepers?

Would people upgrade their cheap kit lenses for the (still relatively) cheap VR kit lens? Or would you scrimp and save for a f2.8?

nilhg

As somebody who has just got a body with built in IS, I think I have seen a clear improvement in the number of keepers. Even using short focal lenght lenses it's a great asset in low light situations.

Paulw

IS/VR would depend on what type of photography you're doing.

IS is not that useful for fast moving action that moves in all directions. IS mode 2 on Canon is great for panning though. IS mode 1 is good for relatively still subjects.

It really does depend on what you are doing.

Thirdfox

nilhg wrote: »

As somebody who has just got a body with built in IS, I think I have seen a clear improvement in the number of keepers. Even using short focal lenght lenses it's a great asset in low light situations.

What kind of shutter speeds are you able to handhold at the lower focal lengths? e.g. at 28mm (35mm equiv. - 18mm on a Nikon) I can normally hold 1/8 of a second - I'm sure I wouldn't get a 3 stop reduction (1 second exposure :eek:) from IS/OS/VR whatever the manufacturer wants to call it . But I can see that it would be nice to have on the the far end of the short zoom... 1/4 handheld 55mm shots...

Paulw wrote: »

IS/VR would depend on what type of photography you're doing.

IS is not that useful for fast moving action that moves in all directions. IS mode 2 on Canon is great for panning though. IS mode 1 is good for relatively still subjects.

It really does depend on what you are doing.

Static versus moving object is a slightly different issue to the focal length point. For something like sports VR is going to be of less help when motion blur is unwanted.

Just looking at the focal length point - there must be a point when VR is not longer helpful (I do not think anyone is going to put VR into the 4.5mm fish eye lens!) Even sub-35mm is there actually a massive advantage of having VR at all (compared to cost, extra battery consumption and greater fragility of the lens)?

nilhg

Thirdfox wrote: »

What kind of shutter speeds are you able to handhold at the lower focal lengths? e.g. at 28mm (35mm equiv. - 18mm on a Nikon) I can normally hold 1/8 of a second - I'm sure I wouldn't get a 3 stop reduction (1 second exposure :eek:) from IS/OS/VR whatever the manufacturer wants to call it . But I can see that it would be nice to have on the the far end of the short zoom... 1/4 handheld 55mm shots...

I haven't done too many at that focal lenght, usually take out the 30 f1.4 when its getting dark, I'll have a look this evening and see whats the longest exposure respectable one I have.


Edit Just had a quick look, I have some 1/10sec at 30mm (60mm effective) which are quite decent. Mosk of those low light shots I have are of kids and the little buggers never stay still!

quilmore

I have a 18-200 and I use VR all the time
of course if a kid is moving and low light there is nothing to freeze that except a f/1.4

I've got some good ones at 1/10 sec, all sharp and good looking
love the thing

I'm thinking the absolute combination will be a 18-70 VR (doesn't exist yet, but may be this 18-55 will do) and the 70-200 f/2.8 VR

stcstc

on a lot of the lens, doesnt the IS only kick in at the longer end of the lens

ie on a 28-135 the benefit only appears at the long end

quilmore

stcstc wrote: »

on a lot of the lens, doesnt the IS only kick in at the longer end of the lens

I can assure you it does
you hear the motor going and you see the results, specially at low light

nilhg

Wrotniak.net (well respected commentator on Olympus cameras) did a test on the E510 at 3 focal lengths, 14, 42, and 150mm, his methodology and conclusions are worth a look.
The basic conclusion is that IS is more effective as focal length increases.

Also here is a look at inbody IS versus lens stabilised.

elven

Obviously IS is going to be more effective the longer your focal length (disregarding the other points about subject moving and panning etc) but if you have shaky hands like me and can't hold the nifty fifty at below 1/125th then I would definitely see a benefit. But i want f2.8 *and* image stabilisation... :rolleyes: