Low Light Value of VR in 16-35 vs. Non-VR 18-35 G

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
CalHawkeye Junior Member • Posts: 39
Low Light Value of VR in 16-35 vs. Non-VR 18-35 G

I know there are a lot of Nikkor 18-35 vs. 16-35 threads (I've read many of them), but I wanted some specific feedback on how much low-light value the VR of the 16-35 provides over the 18-35 G, which lacks VR but is a half stop faster at the wide end. I'm guessing the VR wins out over the half stop, but wondering how much of an advantage in low light performance is actually provided (especially since I'm guessing it's probably easier to stabilize the smaller and lighter 18-35 G ). Please let me know your thoughts if you have used both lenses.

I'd use this on my D750 for my travel photography, which is often in low light (which is why I bought a D750 even though I try to keep my equipment as small, compact, and non-intrusive as possible). So, it comes down to the common struggle between weight and size vs. low light performance.

If I can get a better idea of how much low light advantage the 16-35 actually provides, I can then weigh that (and the 2mm wider focal length and constant max aperture) against the lower weight, size, and price of the 18-35 G.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Nikon D750
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow