PDA

View Full Version : VR or no VR that is the question....



Deafjeff
28-03-2010, 08:30 AM
Hi,

I got 70-300mm lens (Sigma) it not VR and we are planning to take this to Florida alongside with nikon 18-55mm VR.

I do struggle to keep my hand still using the Sigma lens.

Should I learn to 'keep still' or invest for the same lens but with VR? As so far they would cost between 350 to 400 I am not sure if it is worth buying....

Unless I go for 55-200 VR would the loss of 100mm be bad thing in Disneyworld?

Jeff

Britchick
28-03-2010, 09:41 AM
if you can afford it i'd say go for it.

There are a lot of things you can do to reduce camera shake- there are ways to hold the - keep your elbows in, stand with your legs shoulder distance apart, make use of anything you can lean on, hold your breath before pressing the button. Also make sure your shutter speed is faster than your focal length.

It might be worth having a real go with this lens before you invest a lot in another one. Sometimes good results can be had with the cheaper lenses. Contrary to what Skywatcher might say it takes skill and knowledge to get a good shot regardless of the quality of the lens.

oh and check out my hints for disney photography http://www.wdisneysecrets.com/index.php/photography/75-quick-hints-for-disney-photography.html

ukwdwnut
28-03-2010, 11:50 AM
hi jeff i have a sigma 70-300 macro and at long range sure its hard to stop camera shake but you get used to it and learn to deal with it, ive taken some pretty good shots for my std so persevere with it for a while atleast :D

keith
28-03-2010, 12:09 PM
Unless I go for 55-200 VR would the loss of 100mm be bad thing in Disneyworld?


I'd get the 55-200VR. The VR will be more useful to you in Disney than the extra 100mm and you can always crop the photo on your computer when you get back if you need to narrow into one subject.

The 55-200 is supposedly a good lens for the money

foreverducky
28-03-2010, 12:16 PM
I'm all for the VR, so I would spend the extra money.

I have the 18-55 lens and the 55-200. I got a good deal for both when I bought my Nikon. I think they are all the lenses I need (except for that good macro I want). And in reality, I find that I use the 18-55 more. I went to a local historical village and realized that with my 55-200, I could not get pictures of whole building as I was just too confined. I think the same would be with Disney.

keith
28-03-2010, 12:19 PM
I'm all for the VR, so I would spend the extra money.

I have the 18-55 lens and the 55-200. I got a good deal for both when I bought my Nikon. I think they are all the lenses I need (except for that good macro I want). And in reality, I find that I use the 18-55 more. I went to a local historical village and realized that with my 55-200, I could not get pictures of whole building as I was just too confined. I think the same would be with Disney.

yes and no in a way

Wide angle is very useful at Disney for establishing the scene shots and generally getting in the context of what you're seeing but then a longer lens can get great if you're at a show or you want to get some detail shots. Detail on the castle, statues and so on.

Yep, if I could only take one of those two, it would still be the 18-55 though

foreverducky
28-03-2010, 12:21 PM
Very true Keith, I guess I was thinking about walking around Fantasy Land and trying to take pictures of the outside of rides. But it would be great for shows like Beauty and the Beast or for the detail at the WS, etc.

Take both. :D

Deafjeff
28-03-2010, 02:07 PM
Hi, is there non Nikon Lens that does VR as I noticed other lens such as Tamron and Sigma doesnt do VR? As I am trying to find other 55-200 VR lens apart from Nikon...

keith
28-03-2010, 02:29 PM
Hi, is there non Nikon Lens that does VR as I noticed other lens such as Tamron and Sigma doesnt do VR? As I am trying to find other 55-200 VR lens apart from Nikon...

Other makes have started doing it, Tamron for example. They also do so called super zooms, 28-300 and so on with VR which is great for Disney. Generally though the rule is, the larger the diffrerence from short to long (28 short, 300 long) the worse quality the lens will be.

Now the 55-200 has a reputation for being pretty good given the range it covers, some of the other makes have less of a good reputation BUT it depends how picky you are! some people would argue well I'd rather have one lens that can do everything even if the photos aren't quite as sharp