[DSe93]

do VR lenses have any disadvantages?

and what's better to get, a Nikon D40 kit with:

18-55 VR --&-- 55-200 ~ $900

18-55 --&-- 55-200 VR ~ $800


thanks

[branko]

Originally Posted by DSe93

and what's better to get, a Nikon D40 kit with:

18-55 VR --&-- 55-200 ~ $900

18-55 --&-- 55-200 VR ~ $800


thanks

Maybe not the right person to answer (Canon camp)...

It all depends on what you are aiming at :

Normally VR is more useful at the long range, since the luminosity is smaller, with the VR you will win one stop.

But then having VR on the wide lens allows you to take more pictures without a flash indoors.

What about the aperture of the lenses are they the same ?

[Gig103]

There's no disadvantage to VR other than a little bit of added weight. But (at least in the Canon camp) it can be disabled if you want to induce some blur or shake.

As for which one is better (if you can only have one) I think it depends on your usage...

18-55: Would be your indoor lens, and VR might help you use a longer shutter speed to avoid using your flash
55-200: At the longer focal lengths, lenses are more susceptible to small movement

So which will you be using more?

[vachss]

Generally speaking the only disadvantage of VR/IS is the added cost and, potentially, some additional tendency toward lens flare due to the additional lens elements. Most VR/IS lenses have this pretty well under control though.

[r3volution]

There isn't any disadvantages to VR lenses. Only benefits

Oh, actually...there may be one disadvantage. My 55-200mm VR lens makes a very high pitch whine when the VR is on. Some people might not be able to hear it, but it is there.

[Incompatible]

I've been using the Nikon 18-200 VR lens for a while now and it's great. It's practically a do-it-all lens which means you don't have to carry around multiple lenses, you're not constantly swap lenses, you don't have to worry about dust getting on the sensor during lens swaps, and you (almost) always have the right lens at the right time. For what you get it's not overly large or heavy, but it isn't a lightweight by any means. The VR mode is great for no flash low light shots.

The downside is it's price. If you consider it's price in perspective of two different lenses of the same quality, it's not such a bad deal. Something to consider.

[TurboFan]

skip the VR on wide angle lenses (18-55). The rule with good technique is you can hand-hold shutter speeds down to 1/focal length. So, if you are shooting at 18mm, you can hand-hold down to 1/18 sec on the shutter speed, and likely get a good result, if you have good technique. So, that's a pretty slow shutter speed, very little need for VR.

However, for a 200mm focal length, you need to be around 1/200 sec to avoid blur. You will have a hard time with that indoors, early morning / late day light. So, the VR is more useful in the longer ranges.

Downsides? Battery drain, slower focus, heavy, more complex. Image-wise, there's no real downside. VR can be turned off on the Nikon lenses I have.

[TurboFan]

btw, I'd take a D60 over the D40x. I wouldn't buy a D40.

[DSe93]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

skip the VR on wide angle lenses (18-55). The rule with good technique is you can hand-hold shutter speeds down to 1/focal length. So, if you are shooting at 18mm, you can hand-hold down to 1/18 sec on the shutter speed, and likely get a good result, if you have good technique. So, that's a pretty slow shutter speed, very little need for VR.

However, for a 200mm focal length, you need to be around 1/200 sec to avoid blur. You will have a hard time with that indoors, early morning / late day light. So, the VR is more useful in the longer ranges.

Downsides? Battery drain, slower focus, heavy, more complex. Image-wise, there's no real downside. VR can be turned off on the Nikon lenses I have.

makes sense, thanks

Originally Posted by TurboFan

btw, I'd take a D60 over the D40x. I wouldn't buy a D40.

why is that?
I read this article and it was convincing... its about D40 vs D60
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

[r3volution]

I just got the D40. No major difference between the D40 and the D60.

I got the D40 because I am just getting into photography and I don't know how long I will be interested. In a couple of years, if I still can find the time and enjoy it, I'll upgrade for something beyond the D60 (at least the D80).

[Nyulak]

I like my D40. I'm by no means a professional, so there's no sense in me buying a more expensive body. Besides, I'd rather save money for a good VR like the OP.

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by DSe93

makes sense, thanks



why is that?
I read this article and it was convincing... its about D40 vs D60
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

Ok, I take it back, but I would be looking for the D40x. I'm so confused lately with the new Nikon bodies, they are popping up like pimples on a teenager. I have a D200 and love it. I'm on the fence for a D700, but I haven't had time to do my research.

I scanned the article from Ken Rockwell. I've never found him to be wrong. I was of the impression that the D60 had more of the technology from the D3/300 platform, but it seems it does not.

So, go for the 40x, and happy shooting!

[ATG]

As to lenses, I highly recommend 16-85 VR for all around shooting. It's very sharp and has a nice contrast.