Is Vibration Reduction Important at Short Focal Lengths?
Sep 2, 2014 00:26:21 #
I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally better than zooms in terms of image quality and am looking at what primes would be useful for me. Looking at shorter focal length zooms (50-100mm or so), there's sometimes (usually) a considerable cost difference with or without vibration reduction.
I keep reading that at shorter focal lengths, 35, 50, 58, 60mm, etc., VR is not so important, but it seems to me that if I move the lens 1 percent of the frame height or width it shouldn't matter what the focal length is, the amount of blur would be the same.
Having consumed, by my guesstimation, 9000 gallons of beer during my life, my hand is not as steady as before, therefore this is an important consideration for me.
Input and advice please?
I keep reading that at shorter focal lengths, 35, 50, 58, 60mm, etc., VR is not so important, but it seems to me that if I move the lens 1 percent of the frame height or width it shouldn't matter what the focal length is, the amount of blur would be the same.
Having consumed, by my guesstimation, 9000 gallons of beer during my life, my hand is not as steady as before, therefore this is an important consideration for me.
Input and advice please?
Sep 2, 2014 00:31:18 #
Have you done any empirical research on whether you are steadier before or after imbibing? My sense is that I'm not as steady but think I am.
Sep 2, 2014 00:34:09 #
I might make a difference how long ago it was since the last indulgence as compared to the time of using your camera :-)
Sep 2, 2014 00:38:56 #
Sep 2, 2014 00:52:48 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
OddJobber wrote:
I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally ... (show quote)
The expectation is that camera shake does not result in a small "translational movement", shifting up/down/right/left, but a small "angular movement" like turning a little in those directions. If the angular movement is the same with a 24mm or 100mm lens, the effect is greater with the 100mm lens because the total angle of view of the frame is less. The other factor, though, is that physically longer lenses are likely to result in greater angular movement than physically shorter lenses, and a 24mm f/2.8 lens is much smaller than a 100mm f/2.8 lens.
While VR is used in macro lenses and exotic telephotos, it is usually not in most other prime lenses. While it helps avoid camera shake, it also adds optical and physical elements which can affect the overall image quality. People who shoot fast primes usually want the best IQ they can get, so not having VR makes sense.
My general solution to reducing camera shake when using primes is a monopod.
Sep 2, 2014 01:10:25 #
amehta wrote:
Very well said, Amehta. John O.The expectation is that camera shake does not resu... (show quote)
Sep 2, 2014 01:17:55 #
OddJobber wrote:
I shoot everything with a prime lens no tripod but I use VR as this is a great feature and convenience to have.I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally ... (show quote)
Ametha is right, the influence of motion and vibration is more noticeable in a small telephoto than a 'normal' lens and even less in a 35mm but it still exists.
Sep 2, 2014 01:38:07 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Of my poor man's full-frame trinity, the Tokina 16-28mm, the Nikkor 28-300mm and the Nikkor 80-400mm, only the Tokina is without VR and it is the lens that needs it least. John O.I shoot everything with a prime lens no tripod but I use VR as this is a great feature and convenience to have.
Ametha is right, the influence of motion and vibration is more noticeable in a small telephoto than a 'normal' lens and even less in a 35mm but it still exists.
Ametha is right, the influence of motion and vibration is more noticeable in a small telephoto than a 'normal' lens and even less in a 35mm but it still exists.
Sep 2, 2014 02:38:23 #
As a rule of thumb, I have always applied the length of the lens as my min shutter speed to avoid camera shake.
ie 300mm lens requires a shutter speed of 1/300th sec.
(Multiply x 1.5 unless using a full frame sensor today)
We all used that 'back in the day' of 35mm SLR's. Or you leaned gainst a tree. I carried a small pillow (and still do) about 3 inches x 6 inches to rest my camera on if I wasn't carrying a tripod.
My 80-200 2.8 has no VR. Heavy lens but camera shake? No.
And I'm an older 9 stone weakling.
I think we are spoilt with all this must have technology and losing the basics of the craft.
Just saying :)
ie 300mm lens requires a shutter speed of 1/300th sec.
(Multiply x 1.5 unless using a full frame sensor today)
We all used that 'back in the day' of 35mm SLR's. Or you leaned gainst a tree. I carried a small pillow (and still do) about 3 inches x 6 inches to rest my camera on if I wasn't carrying a tripod.
My 80-200 2.8 has no VR. Heavy lens but camera shake? No.
And I'm an older 9 stone weakling.
I think we are spoilt with all this must have technology and losing the basics of the craft.
Just saying :)
Sep 2, 2014 06:08:40 #
OddJobber wrote:
I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally ... (show quote)
After that much beer your eyes are not what they used to be so it doesn't matter if you have image stabilization.
I know from personal experience (I think I'm over the 10000 + mark)
Sep 2, 2014 06:47:08 #
OddJobber wrote:
I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally ... (show quote)
I think that it's not as important in real life.
In my experience it's MUCH easier to hold a short lens steady than a long one...why? I don't know but I do compare it to this:
Look at an object across the room and shift your head slightly...you don't even see a problem.
But now look through a paper towel tube and do the same thing...the slightest movement causes an issue and it's VERY tough to hold steady.
Probably a bad analogy but that's how I view it.
Sep 2, 2014 09:22:48 #
JuanitaW wrote:
It doesn't matter if you are using a tripod.
But Juanita, real Oregonians don't use tripods. LOL Seriously I hand hold 95 percent of the time.
Sep 2, 2014 09:30:31 #
Wow. I didn't expect so much input overnight. I'll study this a bit (and look for a paper towel tube) and get back here in a bit. Good stuff to think about.
In the meantime, if I wasn't so thickheaded I would realize that I can set a zoom lens at 85mm or so and experiment with and without VR. Duh. :)
In the meantime, if I wasn't so thickheaded I would realize that I can set a zoom lens at 85mm or so and experiment with and without VR. Duh. :)
Sep 2, 2014 09:41:24 #
OddJobber wrote:
I'm now convinced that prime lenses are generally ... (show quote)
As an older person with less steady hands, the shorter faster primes allow me to shoot at faster speeds than the standard 1/focal length rule. a 35mm lens shot at 1/500 secs will kill camera shake. Only problem is low light, of course. That having been said If I have booze on board 1/1000 wont help.
Sep 2, 2014 10:03:54 #
OddJobber wrote:
I keep reading that at shorter focal lengths, 35, 50, 58, 60mm, etc., VR is not so important, but it seems to me that if I move the lens 1 percent of the frame height or width it shouldn't matter what the focal length is, the amount of blur would be the same.
I keep reading that at shorter focal lengths, 35, 50, 58, 60mm, etc., VR is not so important, but it seems to me that if I move the lens 1 percent of the frame height or width it shouldn't matter what the focal length is, the amount of blur would be the same.
Think about it. With a longer lens it takes much less angular change to move the target a greater percentage of the frame height or width, hence more camera shake effect. Have a look at these excellent videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2b62BJIw5c
http://youtu.be/t3A3SnPFPk0
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.