Low light: Prime or VR?

Hi everyone,

After learning a lot from many posts here, I decided (also after searching for similar topics, and not finding), to post a question of my own.

I have a D40, which I use with a recently acquired Nikon DX 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 VR.

I also have one Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF, which I bought on an instinct before knowing anything about "focus motors", and "no autofocus with your D40".

Anyway, I am always wondering which should work better (by "better" I mean no blurring when handheld) in low light. A 1.8 prime, or VR? If 1.8 is the answer, would also 2.8 be?

Thanks in advance,

Casquilha

• sharper
• brighter viewfinder
• faster, surer AF
• allows faster shutter speed to freeze motion

Marco.

The 50mm will take in way more light at f/1.8, meaning you can use either higher shutter speeds or lower your ISO.. f/3.5-5.6 might not be enough for a decent exposure, but i don't know just how dark where you will be shooting is.

If your subject is moving you may also have no choice - VR can help steady your hand but it doesn't change subject blur if they are moving and you are using lower shutter speeds like 1/15 or even 1/40.

It really depends how dim the light is and what your shooting.
Hope this helps.

Hello,

An ideal lens for general use in low light, that will autofocus on your D40, is the 35mm f1.8 AF-S. This sits nicely in the middle of the standard zoom range (18-55 for your camera), so is very versatile.

It's also probably the second cheapest prime lens that Nikon makes, after your 50mm f1.8 that doesn't autofocus on D40 - and it's a really good, light little lens! Highly recommended. I'd see if you can trade the 50mm for the 35mm.

From memory, the only other Nikon-made prime that will autofocus on the D40 is the 50mm f1.4, unless you want to pay well over $600 or equivalent

This is almost twice the price of the 35mm f1.8 but of course will gather even more light at f1.4.

An aperture of f1.8 will gather twice as much light as f2.8 (I believe!) so is definitely what you're looking for.

Also at 35mm you will find that VR is not really necessary, as small hand movements will not affect the picture a great deal. VR is much more effective at longer focal lengths.

Finally, as someone else said - VR will only prevent blur caused by your own hand movements. If the subject is moving, VR will not stop them being blurred. But a larger aperture (eg. f1.8) certainly will as it allows faster shutter speeds.

If the subject is moving, than the 1.8 prime. If it's static, in my opinion, VR is better.
I've taken many shots at 1/10 sec and lower that are sharp with VR.

So ...if your getting really low shutter speeds with the fast prime, you may be better off with VR.

There's never a simple answer.
John

casquilha2 said:

Hi everyone,

After learning a lot from many posts here, I decided (also after searching for similar topics, and not finding), to post a question of my own.

I have a D40, which I use with a recently acquired Nikon DX 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 VR.

I also have one Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF, which I bought on an instinct before knowing anything about "focus motors", and "no autofocus with your D40".

Anyway, I am always wondering which should work better (by "better" I mean no blurring when handheld) in low light. A 1.8 prime, or VR? If 1.8 is the answer, would also 2.8 be?

Thanks in advance,

Casquilha

Click to expand...

--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye

I just came from shooting a graduation indoors at 200mm f/2.8 dragging the shutter at 1/80 - 1/100s and I still had to shoot at ISO 1600-3200.

Definitely a fast prime lens is better. Just one stop faster allows me to double my shutter speeds.
--
http://www.southfloridapics.com

Tried it out with my sigma 50 1.4 and the nikon 16-85 set at 50 and as stated earlier the nikon vr needs to pump up the iso and slow down the shutter considerably to come close to matching the prime.

Hey guys,
I'd like to thank you for each and every answer so far.

I asked this also because I was in fact considering buying a 35 f 1.8 af-s, but then I wondered what would be the gain, compared to the 18-55 VR.

Seems like the prime really gives me a better chance of sharp shots in low light!

Regards,

Thiago

casquilha2 said:

Hi everyone,

After learning a lot from many posts here, I decided (also after searching for similar topics, and not finding), to post a question of my own.

I have a D40, which I use with a recently acquired Nikon DX 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 VR.

I also have one Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF, which I bought on an instinct before knowing anything about "focus motors", and "no autofocus with your D40".

Anyway, I am always wondering which should work better (by "better" I mean no blurring when handheld) in low light. A 1.8 prime, or VR? If 1.8 is the answer, would also 2.8 be?

Thanks in advance,

Casquilha

Click to expand...

Hi,

There are two sides to this coin like with everything. The wide opened aperture will provide you wit faster shutter speed, but also it will give you a very shallow depth of field, which is not always acceptable or desirable. You have to close apperture to achieve DOF you need. Now you have a choice to bump ISO up (which is already high) to keep shutter speed or to use VR. So it all boils down to what you are shooting. Both are tools for particular use.
--
Best regards

I had a D40 with a Sigma 30mm F1.4 great low light combo and will autofocus on that camera.

When I first got into the hobby, everything I read was "for lowlight, get a fast prime". So, I went off and got a 35mm F/1.8G. What floored me was that I found I was using as high or higher ISO settings in low light as my 18-200 at 35mm. Why? Because the VR on the 18-200 allowed me to use a much slower shutter speed (1/10th of a second or slower) than the 35mm (1/30th of a second or faster). That more than made up for the slower lens, even when using the 18-200 VR at 35mm (which is F/4.2, I believe).

After much research, and observing my shooting style, I realized that a fast zoom (like the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VC) with image stabilization is the best way to go if I'm shooting stuff that doesn't move. A Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 VC at 35mm can take a shot at about 1/8th of a second at 35mm, while the 35mm requires 1/30th. Overall, it works out to be about a stop advantage, meaning ISO 800 for the Tammy, for example, if the 35mm prime requires ISO 1600. And lower ISO will trump a slightly better IQ any day. Besides, most fast primes aren't that good in the IQ department wide open.

OTOH, if you're shooting stuff that moves (kids, etc), you need the faster shutter speed anyway, so a fast prime rules.

Thus I have both, an image stabilized fast zoom (the Tammy 17-50 F/2.8 VC), and a pair of primes (Nikon 35mm F/1.8G, Tamron 60mm F/2.0 Macro). I use the zoom far more often, but occasionally I need the primes.

So you should carefully consider what you intend to shoot in low light. If it's moving (like kids indoors), you'll need fast shutter speeds, so a prime is ideal. If it's not moving, like the inside of a museum, or posing people, then image stabilized fast zooms are better. Ideally, an image stabilized F/2 35mm prime would be the best, but nobody makes those

VR or prime?... answer is not simple.

It depends what is your goal and what lens is used. VR can be best used with longer telephoto lenses. With wider lenses VR is of less practical use.

What is worth to mention... VR is never substitute if ultimate sharpness is goal. VR introduces some movement of it's own and if faster shutter speed is used (or when tripod is used) than it will most likely downgrade image quality. So VR can only compensate if acceptable sharpness is goal and not for ultimate sharpness. That's why faster shutter speed and slower shutter speed with VR turned on are not the same thing.

People very often compare images which are shot at far too low shutter speeds. If for example 35 mm lens is used than shutter speed should be at least 1/60 sec, but for most people 1/80 or even 1/100 sec should be better. And if you compare those images shot at 1/100 sec without VR and those shot at 1/30-1/100 sec with VR turned on than pictures shot without VR will be sharper.

casquilha2 said:

Anyway, I am always wondering which should work better (by "better" I mean no blurring when handheld) in low light. A 1.8 prime, or VR? If 1.8 is the answer, would also 2.8 be?

Click to expand...

Probably not what you want to hear, but the best way to get good and blur free images in low light is to use flash and VR - and use a prime if you want to get shallow DoF.
Using a flash will allow you to use a lower ISO or a faster shutter speed.

To get good looking images with flash try to balance the background exposure with the flash exposure - under exposing the background by 1-2 EV is a good start and the flash will use the right exposure for the foreground. Bouncing the flash will eliminate the harsh shadows and using a custom white balance with a coloured gel over the flash results in natural looking light.

Often the quality of the light isn't very good in low light situations and using flash will result in better images even if you could get blur free images without flash.

VR, flash and wide open apertures are just tools and cn be used together - it's not A or B.

Dayd3 wrote:

That's why faster shutter speed and slower shutter speed with VR turned on are not the same thing.

Dayd3 said:

People very often compare images which are shot at far too low shutter speeds. If for example 35 mm lens is used than shutter speed should be at least 1/60 sec, but for most people 1/80 or even 1/100 sec should be better. And if you compare those images shot at 1/100 sec without VR and those shot at 1/30-1/100 sec with VR turned on than pictures shot without VR will be sharper.

Click to expand...

Not true. If lighting conditions require VR for short FL lenses, the faster shutter speed will require higher ISO. I have never seen a case where the IQ loss due to VR was worse than 2-3 stops higher ISO.

Yes, your IQ won't be as good with VR as it would be with a tripod, but higher shutter speeds (with compensating ISO increase) will, in my experience, make the photo worse . The only case that's not true is if the faster shutter speed doesn't require an ISO increase, in which case we're not talking low-light (IMO)

If absolute IQ is the goal, use a tripod. Period. What we're talking about here is handheld photography. From my experience, if the target isn't moving, a fast image stabilized lens will produce superior handheld shots in lowlight than any unstabilized prime, for a given focal length.

. . . From the Royal Air force :

"if it moves, salute it". "If it doesn't, paint it"

That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread,
except that there is discussion about things which move . . .



--
. . .

hoof said:

Dayd3 said:

People very often compare images which are shot at far too low shutter speeds. If for example 35 mm lens is used than shutter speed should be at least 1/60 sec, but for most people 1/80 or even 1/100 sec should be better. And if you compare those images shot at 1/100 sec without VR and those shot at 1/30-1/100 sec with VR turned on than pictures shot without VR will be sharper.

Click to expand...

Not true. If lighting conditions require VR for short FL lenses, the faster shutter speed will require higher ISO. I have never seen a case where the IQ loss due to VR was worse than 2-3 stops higher ISO.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what's not true? Question was prime or VR, and primes are most usually faster lenses than most VR lenses.

Since you already own both types of lenses the best way to tell what will work best for you is to try them for yourself.

I just did this using a 35mm f1.8 and 18-105 zoom on my D90. Since I do not have any children or pets in the house I could only test for stationary subjects. I took 5 pictures each of the same subject using the 35mm at 1.8 and 18-105 set to 35mm at f4.5. That is wide open in both cases. The 18-105 has a first generation VR system like your 18-55. At 1.8 I had a shutter speed of 1/30 and the zoom had a shutter speed of 1/5. I found the results to be about equal. All the shots were not as sharp as they would have been if I used a tripod or bumped up the ISO but 3 of 5 were sharp enough. But if I had been trying to take a picture of my grandson the 1/5 shutter speed would have been woefully inadequate.

The poster that mentioned both these shutter speeds are too slow for ultimate sharpness is correct. But when taking pictures of children the subject is much more important than technical perfection. One of my grandchildren reacts badly to a flash. Trying to force children to stay still results in rigid and unnatural expressions. I would much rather have a slightly motion blurred photo of a happy kid with a natural and relaxed expression than a technically perfect of the same child sullenly staring at the camera.

For children and dogs I prefer the 35mm. For stationary objects I prefer the VR zoom. Cats and a lot of adults fall into the stationary object category most of the time.

pete_mb said:

An aperture of f1.8 will gather twice as much light as f2.8 (I believe!) so is definitely what you're looking for.

Click to expand...

A small correction:

The light gathering goes by the area of the aperture, and area goes by the square of diameter, so the correct ratio is about (2.8/1.8)^2 ~= 2.5, which means f/1.8 aperture gathers about 2.5 times more light than the light gathered by f/2.8 aperture.

Best regards

--
Frank Yellowstone

Dayd3 said:

hoof said:

Dayd3 said:

People very often compare images which are shot at far too low shutter speeds. If for example 35 mm lens is used than shutter speed should be at least 1/60 sec, but for most people 1/80 or even 1/100 sec should be better. And if you compare those images shot at 1/100 sec without VR and those shot at 1/30-1/100 sec with VR turned on than pictures shot without VR will be sharper.

Click to expand...

Not true. If lighting conditions require VR for short FL lenses, the faster shutter speed will require higher ISO. I have never seen a case where the IQ loss due to VR was worse than 2-3 stops higher ISO.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what's not true? Question was prime or VR, and primes are most usually faster lenses than most VR lenses.

Click to expand...

Simple. For a given shutter speed, the prime will yield a lower ISO, due to it collecting more light (faster lens). Thus, if you need a particular shutter speed (such as to photograph moving children), then a prime is ideal.

However, VR lets you get a sharp photo with much slower shutter speeds than you can get with a prime (handheld, otherwise "VR" wouldn't have been in the original question). Take the 35mm F/1.8G. For a 50-70% hit rate, you need about 1/40th of a second shutter speed. Now take a nikon 18-200 VR at 35mm. That's about F/4.2. In terms of F ratio, F/4.2 is 2.7 stops slower than F/1.8, meaning the Nikon should require that many stops higher ISO (ISO 2600 vs ISO 400 for the prime).

Now, the VR on the 18-200 is worth about 3 stops in the field. So, if unstabilized requires 1/40th of a second, 3 stops better will be about 1/5th of a second. In terms of ISO, that would be a 3 stop improvement vs the ISO needed for 1/40th of a second (or ISO 350 vs ISO 2600)

I've managed to get about 1/8th of a second on the 18-200 to get a similar hit rate vs my 35mm prime. That isn't quite 2.7 stops better, but close, which is why I found that the ISO of my shots with my zoom was similar to my supposedly "better" 35mm prime. And that was what clued me in that the "primes are better for lowlight" idea wasn't entirely true in all cases.

Now, take a Tamron F/2.8 VC lens. Not only it it faster by 1.6 stops, but the VC is slightly better (IMO) than the Nikon version. What does that translate into? Well, at 1/8th of a second, it can yield a further stop ISO improvement over the nikon (either), yielding about 1/2 the ISO required vs the 35mm prime. (400 for the prime, x4 for the slower speed so 1600, divide by 8 for the 3 stops of stabilization yields ISO 200, or 2x better than the prime)

For a 50mm F/1.4G prime, the math works out similarly. The Tamron at 50mm is 2 stops slower in F ratio, but 3 stops better(due to VC) in how slow you can make the shutter speed yet get similar sharpness. Not only that, but the Tamron 50mm at F/2.8 is generally sharper than virtually any F/1.4 lens at F/1.4.

Practical experience has validated the math above. From my experience, for shooting stuff that doesn't move, a fast zoom with image stabilization (like the Tamron) yields lower ISO shots than a 35mm F/1.8G or a 50mm F/1.4.

The math doesn't lie, nor does the real world experience. That is the basis for my statement that VR is generally better if your target isn't moving, otherwise use a prime. And it's because you don't have to use the same shutter speed, VC/VR lets you use a much slower shutter speed than you would otherwise need.

Hi Casquilha,

You have been trough a lot of technical stuff now. Let me give you a different angle on things.

Lets make one thing straight first. I enjoy and use both primes and zooms, VR and non-VR lenses. They are all great, and they are different horses for different courses.

I started out with a D60 with a 18-55 VR lens. I have spent a whole lot of money, sold three different bodies the last year and a pile of lenses. You can save on buying good glass first time around.

Anyways, The number one reason I love primes and the 50G/1.4 in particular is... It lets me take pictures my other lenses does not. By that I mean the primes biggest advantage today is the LACK of depth of field (aka DOF).

If you shoot people, like I do, the possibility of isolating the face of your subject is easy with a prime in the 1.4-1.8-2.0 range.Yes, sometimes you need to stop down to 2.8 or a smaller aperture. But I often shoot around f/2. That makes for wonderful blurred backgrounds. I am sure you have tried this already. Practice makes perfect. If you decrease the distance to your subject, and position yourself so that the background is far away... The portrait will be fine. The 35 is a fine lens, as is the 50, the 85 and even the 60G/2.8 can be put to portrait use. If you spend a lot of money, you can get the prime +VR 105 Macro. A very popular lens, not particularly for portraits, but a lot of people makes double use of this macro.

I am primarily an available light photographer. So I like to leave my two SB 900 flashguns in the bag. They are great, but they can destroy the "mood". Of course I can stick my Nikon on a tripod and shoot in candlelight or moonlight. I can even do it at low ISO. But those shots will not include a human being. If they do she or he will be blurred, not sharp. High ISO and a prime wide open can solve this... sometimes.

If you buy the 35/1.8 I think you cannot go wrong. And my preference is primes for winter, indoors and people, zooms for the rest. They are more convenient, but they do not stand out in the primes territory. Full-frame and expensive zooms are an exception from this rule

Hope this helps.