VR/IS Lenses....

[CyBeRkId2002]

Hi everyone,

I have finally decided on the lenses i eventually want to end up and have started by buying a 24-70 2.8 Sigma EX Lens. My next step is for a decent telephoto and has led me into a tricky decision.

Basically i have narrowed it down to these three lenses:

Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX
Nikon 80-200 Non-Silent Wave version
Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR AF-S

My main question is actually whether its worth buying a lens with Optical Stabilisation at the present time. OS is definately something I want in my lenses, but is the market moving towards onboard OS as standard within the next few years. If so it would make a massive difference to my purchasing decisions right now. The extra £500ish quid for VR is a massive amount for me, and not something i want to a out now, to be made redundant in the near future.

Any opinions on the way the market is going and whether i should coughup for OS now would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,
Michael

[Kobus]

Nikon / Canon will not bring out on board IS / VR soon.

[CyBeRkId2002]

what makes you say that? not doubting it, just wondered whether you had some info on the subject.

[barongreenback]

On current standards in lens stabilisation will always be superior hence Canon and Nikon use that.

[Radiohead]

Whether you need VR depends on the shooting you do - what do you do?

[CyBeRkId2002]

all sorts of stuff...getting into gig photography at the minute and considering doing a wedding course at some point in the future. I presume it would be useful for both of these.

Cheers,
Michael

[Radiohead]

Weddings yes, with more static set-ups, gigs less so as VR won't help you freeze action. You'll need high-ISO and fast lenses there (and with weddings).

[CyBeRkId2002]

for the static setups do you not use a tripod making VR completely redundant? id be interested to hear the real advantages to using a VR lens then (what style of photogrpahy it really benefits).

Cheers,
Michael

[ush flynn]

wedding photography would benefit mate. think about it, you hardly stand still with a tripod at a wedding, but then again your subject isnt prancing about on a stage. This is when VR would help you out as you can handhold and move around a pretty much static subject (the formal shots people want at a wedding) you might find yourself switching off the VR for the informal shots and using higher iso and bigger apertures to get those great shots of people laughing and having a great time.

Gig photography your in low light most of the time with a subject that doesnt stay still. VR mostly isnt going to help much here, it will use more battery power also. VR isnt going to help you freeze action, again big apertures and higher iso's are your friend here

i find VR helpful on my climbing and trekking as it means i dont have to carry a tripod around, or perhaps just get away with a monopod. There are times you want to be more discrete also, like taking pictures of the public or buildings (sometimes security move you on if your taking pictures of buildings, like they do to me in canary wharf!) so being able to use slower shutter speeds or smaller apertures without the use of a tripod is a huge advantage

[Radiohead]

ush pretty much sums it up

[Radiohead]

One other question - it wouldn't be the first lens on my list for weddings (although I have one and love it). What other glass do you have?

[CyBeRkId2002]

the only keepers i have at the minute are my Nikon d50, 50mm 1.8 nikon and a 24-70 2.8 Sigma Ex. What else would be needed for a wedding shoot. So far stuff I think I need are: decent telephoto, Flashgun, Second body (d200), more storage.

Thanks to Ush for the input, still undecided on which to go far. Would it be worth the extra expense purely for the formal wedding shots or is it just a nice extra feature. Basically, could i get away with one of the other two lenses?

Cheers to you both,
Michael

[CyBeRkId2002]

oh...and a wide angle lens

[Radiohead]

Add a second flash as well and agreed on the storage. Be very careful with ultra-wides and wedding groups - they can distort horribly. You won't do many formals, if any, with something like a 70-200. I do know that SSB of these forums will shortly be selling a mint AF-S 80-200mm Nikkor and that would be worth looking at. The 24mm of the Sigma isn't that wide, so a 12-24 could fill that hole (Tokina is a great value model). Just be aware of distortion at the wide end.

FWIW, I do a fair amount of paid weddings and almost always use the same two lenses, 17-55mm on a D2x and 85/1.4 on a D200.

[CyBeRkId2002]

no, i was thinking of getting that for more candid shots if any which i suppose negates the use of VR. I will keep my eye out to see if SSB decides to sell his 80-200 but its going to depend on cost. I personally cant see the benefit in a massive extra cost just for slightly faster, quieter focusing. Especially as the non-AFs versions can be had off ebay for as little as £450ish.

Would a D200/D50 combo be a reasonable starting point? And do you have any experience with the Sigma 70-200 2.8 lenses?

Cheers,
Michael