[richard-wong]

I am looking to buy a Nikon D40 and start my photography hobby. I understand that within the last year or 2 there are new VR lenses. The D40 kit doesn't include the VR feature on the 18-55. I am just curious as if anyone has done any field tests on the VR's quality. I know it meant to improve 3-4fstops but surely that's urban legend. also while i am on the subject of lense. Seeing the lack of VR i can get third party fast lense, surely that compensates the VR?

[TarMoo]

See Nikon lens reviews here ...

Nikon Field Flash Digital Guide photography by Thom Hogan

Lens Evaluations

Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests

[richard-wong]

i have been to the first and last sites, there are some newer VR lenses which haven't been tested, the ones that are tempting me is the 16-85mm 3.5-5.6 VR lense. any field opinions

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by richard-wong

I am looking to buy a Nikon D40 and start my photography hobby. I understand that within the last year or 2 there are new VR lenses. The D40 kit doesn't include the VR feature on the 18-55. I am just curious as if anyone has done any field tests on the VR's quality. I know it meant to improve 3-4fstops but surely that's urban legend. also while i am on the subject of lense. Seeing the lack of VR i can get third party fast lense, surely that compensates the VR?

No, it's not an urban legend. You don't actually have to compare VR vs non-VR lenses, you just flick the VR switch on something like an 18-200VR and take a load of test shots with it on and off

This next one is with the 18-200VR. The first shot is with VR turned off, and the ISO boosted to get the best shot possible, and the RAW file processed with Nikon Capture NX with NR at high quality.

Nikon D200+18-200VR @20mm, f3.5 1/20th sec, 800 ISO

VR is then engaged, and the ISO knocked down to 100 ISO, 1/2 sec, f3.5

So there's your 3 stops. 1/20th without VR, 1/2 sec with.

Fast glass will obviously get you part of the way there - something like an f1.4 or 1.8 prime (but obviously with a wafer thin DOF). f2.8 zooms though are only gaining you about 1 stop. Having said that, VR is utterly useless for moving subjects.

If you shoot still life (landscapes, buildings, interiors (churches, museums etc), get VR. If you shoot people or events, get fast glass. If you do both, ultimately you'll want both...simple as that

[richard-wong]

very nice post. thanks a bunch, I think i have made up my mind on the lenses and reading what ken rockwell have recommended and tested.

gonna get the 18-55mm VR lense as a beginning and the 55-200mm VR compliment the range. I heard bad stories about the 18-200mm VR sumthing about AF not working well etc. are there good portion of bad ones out there?

[Yandros]

Point #1 - DON'T BUY ANYTHING BASED ON A KEN ROCKWELL REVIEW

Rockwell is the Jeremy Clarkson of the camera world

The 18-200VR is a bit soft at 200mm and suffers from zoom creep occasionally when hanging vertically, but that's about all that's wrong with it. I've not heard of any AF issues at all, and certainly mine has been fine.

If you're wanting the best of the bunch, the 16-85VR would be one to go for, paired with a 70-300VR. The 16-85VR is pretty much the sharpest of the consumer grade zooms, and has a metal lens mount rather than plastic.

If budget is an issue though, I'd say 18-55VR. If you can run to it, the 70-300VR would still be my long zoom choice, as 200mm is a bit short for wildlife.

[beachy]

Taken with the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens

1 http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g2...47/Tiger-1.jpg

2 http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g2...y47/Croc-2.jpg

[Strobe]

It might be worth having a look at the new 18-105 VR Nikon kit lens (the one which comes with the D90). It has a plastic mount but, from reading write-ups, it is pretty sharp and a good all-round lightweight walk-about lens. It's £200 on its own but I'm sure you could get a tad knocked off if purchased with a D40.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Strobe

It might be worth having a look at the new 18-105 VR Nikon kit lens (the one which comes with the D90). It has a plastic mount but, from reading write-ups, it is pretty sharp and a good all-round lightweight walk-about lens. It's £200 on its own but I'm sure you could get a tad knocked off if purchased with a D40.

Yep, I've seen some comparison shots vs the 16-85VR and they're about the same.

[Sorj]

Originally Posted by Yandros

Fast glass will obviously get you part of the way there - something like an f1.4 or 1.8 prime (but obviously with a wafer thin DOF). f2.8 zooms though are only gaining you about 1 stop. Having said that, VR is utterly useless for moving subjects.

I have to agree, VR/IS/OS is great for static object but and virtually usuless at stopping moving objects. It really depends on what you need to shoot.

[richard-wong]

Originally Posted by Sorj

VR/IS/OS is great for static object but and virtually usuless at stopping moving objects. It really depends on what you need to shoot.

I want to a bit of both really, doing mostly landscape wild animal sort of thing ie need a good telezoom. and maybe take it for football matches or rugby games. obviously gonna have to be a sunny day.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by richard-wong

I want to a bit of both really, doing mostly landscape wild animal sort of thing ie need a good telezoom. and maybe take it for football matches or rugby games. obviously gonna have to be a sunny day.

The big advantage of VR on telephoto lenses is you can ignore the 1/(effective focal length) shutter speed rule. Normally you'd need 1/250th -1/500th sec for 300mm handheld. With VR you can just worry about the speed needed to stop the subject motion, so 1/60th-1/125th is possible if its a slow moving animal.

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by yandros

point #1 - don't buy anything based on a ken rockwell review

+1

[dazza74]

With current prices I'd probably if you fancy the 18-55 VR lens buy the D60 Kit for around £330 that includes this lens.

Another option if you didn't mind going down the second hand route would be picking up a second hand D80 for around £300 and possibly getting the 18-70mm DX lens for around £100 and then getting the 70-300mm VR

[lmccauley]

Originally Posted by Yandros

The big advantage of VR on telephoto lenses is you can ignore the 1/(effective focal length) shutter speed rule. Normally you'd need 1/250th -1/500th sec for 300mm handheld. With VR you can just worry about the speed needed to stop the subject motion, so 1/60th-1/125th is possible if its a slow moving animal.

Yes - this was taken at 300mm from the crowd of a festival at only 1/160 sec with the Nikkor 70-300mm VR lens.

Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 300 mm
ISO Speed: 800

[richard-wong]

yes, i have been doing a bit of compatibility reading on the D40s, i am leaning to either canons or the D80s as the D40 has issues with the pro series of lenses which meant to fit the 35mm DSLR, as being not able to AutoFocus. The particular lense i was thinking about is the 55mm F1.8. seems like to be a great lense and at a very cheap price.