F1.8 vs f3.5 with VR?

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 14,320
Like?
Motion
In reply to Stacey_K, Jan 18, 2013

Stacey_K wrote:

bluetjmcrt wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

bluetjmcrt wrote:

Nope...not the same.

The 35mm 1.8 is great in low-light. Compare it to the kit lens (18-55) at f3.5 in comparable low-light and you will see a HUGE difference when shooting at f2 and below.

How so? Obviously it would have less DOF at those settings but shallow DOF doesn't work for every shot. I'm pretty sure the VR on say the 16-85 is worth at least 2 stops.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

Stacey, because to get good handheld shots in low-light situations at f3.5 you need to bump the ISO up to such aby high level for shutter speeds to be acceptable enough to get the shot and the images are riddled with noise.

Isn't that what VR is for? It gives 2 stops of stabilization if not 3. I won't have to up the ISO anymore that someone would using a non-VR F1.8.

yes you will...unless the scene is composed only of static objects. For scenes including live subjects...VR is no substitute for fast glass.

I can understand if you want shallower DOF (not at this focal length for myself.. ) but the low light thing doesn't make any sense. Without VR what you state is a very obvious basic photographic fact. When you throw VR in the mix it's not.

Not so as often the low-light scene demands a min shutter to prevent motion blur. That is when f1.8 trumps F4 with VR

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow