Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 120078" data-attributes="member: 9240">It depends.&nbsp; It always depends.I just purchased a 16-35mm f4g that has VR.&nbsp; My initial thought was, &quot;Why?!&quot;.&nbsp; 20 seconds after I unpacked it and stuck it on my camera I was at my desk in a dark office staring through the viewfinder with the meter telling me that I needed 1/4 sec exposure at f4 and ISO 400 to shoot my desk.&nbsp; I took a breath, gently squeezed the shutter and was amazed at the tack sharp image.&nbsp; I did it again, and again, and again, at everywhere between 16mm and 35mm.&nbsp; The rule I've lived by is that you're bound to get some movement, regardless of how good your technique, about 50% of the time when your shutter speed is below your focal length (i.e. 16mm lens requires at least 1/16sec, 35mm requires at least 1/35 sec).&nbsp; These were all taken at 1/4 sec and were sharp as can be.&nbsp; My rule is VR is not only for long lenses, it's for when there's less light than you would otherwise need.&nbsp; So, what does &quot;less light than you would otherwise need&quot; mean?&nbsp; It means that you can't (or prefer not to) get ISO high enough or aperture wide enough to increase your shutter speed to where you want it.&nbsp; Going from a long lens at f5.6 with VR to one at f2.8 VR might get you over that line, but at a loss of depth of field that you would otherwise want (guitar player from that great band's nose is in focus, but not the rest of his face).Only you know how your shooting technique impacts camera movement.&nbsp; Only you know the lighting conditions you'll be shooting under.&nbsp; Those are the factors that should go into the VR decision.&nbsp; From there, lens swaps for me are based on quality and what I want to get out of them.&nbsp; When I consider a bright lens I'm looking more for narrow depth of field and help in low light, and not the need to compensate for no VR.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 120078, member: 9240"] It depends. It always depends. I just purchased a 16-35mm f4g that has VR. My initial thought was, "Why?!". 20 seconds after I unpacked it and stuck it on my camera I was at my desk in a dark office staring through the viewfinder with the meter telling me that I needed 1/4 sec exposure at f4 and ISO 400 to shoot my desk. I took a breath, gently squeezed the shutter and was amazed at the tack sharp image. I did it again, and again, and again, at everywhere between 16mm and 35mm. The rule I've lived by is that you're bound to get some movement, regardless of how good your technique, about 50% of the time when your shutter speed is below your focal length (i.e. 16mm lens requires at least 1/16sec, 35mm requires at least 1/35 sec). These were all taken at 1/4 sec and were sharp as can be. My rule is VR is not only for long lenses, it's for when there's less light than you would otherwise need. So, what does "less light than you would otherwise need" mean? It means that you can't (or prefer not to) get ISO high enough or aperture wide enough to increase your shutter speed to where you want it. Going from a long lens at f5.6 with VR to one at f2.8 VR might get you over that line, but at a loss of depth of field that you would otherwise want (guitar player from that great band's nose is in focus, but not the rest of his face). Only you know how your shooting technique impacts camera movement. Only you know the lighting conditions you'll be shooting under. Those are the factors that should go into the VR decision. From there, lens swaps for me are based on quality and what I want to get out of them. When I consider a bright lens I'm looking more for narrow depth of field and help in low light, and not the need to compensate for no VR. [/QUOTE]

Verification