- This topic is empty.
Big aperture vs image stabilization… recommendations?
-
What are the pros and cons of big aperture lenses vs image stabilized (IS, VR, OS) lenses? I’m trying to plan a bit of a budget for a lens to bring with me when I go travelling through Asia/Australia/NZ when I move back to Canada in April/May, and I’m very tempted by Nikon’s 18-200 VR (if I can get my hands on one by then)… but is there a better option for a lens that’ll give me good all-around range and decent low light performance? I’m thinking I probably won’t be able to spend more than 1000ish euro, give or take. I’d love to have a nice big aperture lens to get some more serious short DOF and higher shutter speeds in lower light, but I don’t really know of any lenses that will be anywhere near my price range while still giving me a decent zoom range.
I’m obviously looking at Nikon mount, as well… :) I’d consider picking up multiple lenses to cover my focal range, but ideally a single lens would be preferred.
It’s a tricky Question, but I would err on the side of faster glass. My thinking is that if it’s a lower light situation, and the subject is moving, the faster shutter speeds of faster glass solves both camera shake AND subject movement. Is only helps with camera shake.
As camera shake can be resolved with beanbags, tripods, monopods etc, and subject movement can only be frozen by shutter speeds, that helps me in that decision.
But then, it depends on your subjects. If they are often static, or if your often doing landscape at small apperatures, then fast glass is a glorious waste of money.
I dont think there is one simple answer. If money was no object, then both is the simple answer.
I’m with Merv in all he’s said. Personally I’d tend towards faster glass as it would be more versatile in terms of DoF and low light performance. My Canon optimizes AF for lenses that are f2.8 or faster, I don’t know how Nikons fare in this department, but for one this makes a huge real difference, especially when photographing people. IS/VR/OS would also eat extra battery power, meaning possibly more frequent battery charges/changes if you’re out and about (or traveling)…
[For general use] If its just a question of a f2.8 zoom versus a f4 zoom with stabilisation, then I’d consider your camera body, is noise a problem in lower light situations? If it is, go for the widest lens you can manage to keep the iso a low as possible. If noise isnt a huge problem on your body, choose the stabilised lens, especially for travelling and picking up shots here and there, without having to setup your tripod.
Recently I’d to choose from the [canon] 24-70 f2.8 lens and the 24-105 f4 image stabilisation lens. I really wanted the 2.8 but as the body I have [5D] is fairly decent in respect of noise at higher ISO, I went for the stabilised 24-105 and dont regret it at all. The IS is VERY handy.
Hope that helps.
If you want a good zoom range, you’re probably stuck with IS. I’m not aware of any really fast (f/2.8 or better) zooms with more than 2 or 3x range. You certainly won’t get a good wide-tele with f/2.8. It’s either optically impossible or economically unviable. That 18-200 VR is the best regarded wide range zoom I’ve heard of. Maybe get that for general use and team it with cheaper fast primes for low light or portrait? 50/1.8s are a dime a dozen.
Hrmm, thanks for the notes folks. Nothing here that I haven’t really considered myself already. I’m thinking for my travelling, I’ll (if I can get my hands on one before May) pick up an 18-200VR, and bring along my 50mm 1.8 for just in case situations. Many thanks!
I just picked up my 18-200 VR… Spectra in Dundrum has a couple in stock, and they’re on sale for 720 euro! I couldn’t resist a deal like that :) Can’t wait to get out and try it now!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
