Which lens is fast and which is not?

[HowardE]

Doesn't VR come in handy when shooting uw without a strobe too?

That may not be the most common case with the 105, but with a wide angle lens, and even normal lens, I can think of many situations where I would like to shoot with no lens. Also, if shooting in more shallow water (lets say <= 10m) with the magic filters even with 105, the VR would come very much in handy. Well at least that's what I thought?


/Fota

The VR has the inner-workings of the lens "floating" on a gyroscope. You'd probably have to turn the VR off to shoot good images underwater even.

We need someone who has tried the VR underwater to know for sure...

My friend (store below mine) sells Nikons, and he tried the Nikon VR 18-200 vs. a Tamron 18-200 and both images lens for lens - same shot - hand held - the nikon vr lens had softer edges than the tamron. His recommendation (he shoots scenic photography professionally and has supported himself from his gallery for years) to clients in his retail shop is to not go towards the VR lenses, and that most pros that he speaks to don't use the VR lenses either.

 

[HowardE]

whew, I am safe then....there are benefits to not being ambitious. I like the Aquatica myself. So..are the better ports glass or still cast acrylic?

The more expensive ports are glass. Ikelite doesn't make glass ports at all.

Most of the more expensive housings offer glass ports, like aquatica, sea and sea, subal, etc.

 

[Rooster]

The more expensive ports are glass. Ikelite doesn't make glass ports at all.

Most of the more expensive housings offer glass ports, like aquatica, sea and sea, subal, etc.

Aquatica's ports are not glass.

There are many arguments about glass vs acrylic. Run a search on wepixel or google.

 

[bladephotog]

You can still get motion blur UW so I'm not sure why VR/IS wouldn't work. I shoot handheld ambient as slow as 1/10th to 1/30th in our dark waters here and there are times I'd love to have IS to give it a try.

I do use a couple IS lenses topside, a 400/2.8 and 300/2.8, and they're wonderful. The only Nikon VR lens I've used extensively with VR was the 70-200 and the VR was the only thing I liked about it.

As for the question of fast, the term fast does, as stated, refer to the maximum aperature of a lens. The more light it lets in, the faster it is, ie., faster shutter speed. Faster lenses generally, but not always, autofocus faster than slower lenses. This is most notable in low light situations. Slower lenses have a tendency to search in low light, especially non-internal focusing lenses. Almost all of them though will focus faster than your P&S.

Now which lens is fastest? Who knows? It'd be a little easier to determine which is the fastest zoom wide angle, or telephoto, or macro lens, etc.

With the lenses you've listed I've only used a 12-24 and 60 macro. The 12-24 focused pretty fast but I didn't think mine was very sharp, especially at the corners. The 60 macro I thought was pretty slow, but it was non-IF. Maybe they've changed that now. Razor sharp lens though.

 

[HowardE]

You can still get motion blur UW so I'm not sure why VR/IS wouldn't work. I shoot handheld ambient as slow as 1/10th to 1/30th in our dark waters here and there are times I'd love to have IS to give it a try.

I do use a couple IS lenses topside, a 400/2.8 and 300/2.8, and they're wonderful. The only Nikon VR lens I've used extensively with VR was the 70-200 and the VR was the only thing I liked about it.

How was the sharpness of the images shot with the VR? Just curious...

Personally, I don't usually shoot below 1/60 since I have 2 strobes.

I also didn't say about the Canon IS lenses (if that's what you ment when you said IS) The Nikon VR lenses are Nikon's response to the IS lenses. Just because IS works well, doesn't mean that Nikon's VR also does.

I have someone I can ask about the nikon VR lenses and their use underwater, to see if they do work well, or if he agrees about the soft edges. Personally, I'd rather have a sharp image all around than an in focus center with soft edges. (what my buddy said happened with the Nikon VR time and time again - in his trials)

 

[bladephotog]

With my Nikon 70-200 VR the sharpness was great, edge to edge using the VR. The problem I had with it was it couldn't lock focus, and it had a tendency to back focus. It was a pain so I traded it back in for an 80-200 AF-S. But the VR was excellent on this particular lens.

And I have no problem with edge to edge sharpness with my Canon IS lenses.

I often shoot below 1/60th because I'm trying to shoot big sections of wrecks, or the wrecks entirely. I have two strobes as well but they won't provide that kind of coverage. None will. Some guys up here use tripods but I haven't tried that yet.

I'd rather have sharp edges as well. But, for me that's more a problem with my Ikelite 8" dome port. I can get soft edges at times with that port.

I'd be interested to hear from people using VR/IS underwater. I can see no reason why it wouldn't work but who knows?

 

[HowardE]

With my Nikon 70-200 VR the sharpness was great, edge to edge using the VR. The problem I had with it was it couldn't lock focus, and it had a tendency to back focus. It was a pain so I traded it back in for an 80-200 AF-S. But the VR was excellent on this particular lens.

even when zoomed into 200?? I haven't tried the experiment that my friend did, just curious what your results were.

I also would be curious to hear from people who have used the VR underwater. I was looking into getting myself a 105mm macro lens, and I'm leaning towards finding an older Nikkor 105mm lens on E-bay rather than spending a ton extra for a new 105mm VR.

 

[bladephotog]

even when zoomed into 200?? I haven't tried the experiment that my friend did, just curious what your results were.

I also would be curious to hear from people who have used the VR underwater. I was looking into getting myself a 105mm macro lens, and I'm leaning towards finding an older Nikkor 105mm lens on E-bay rather than spending a ton extra for a new 105mm VR.

Yes, even when zoomed to 200mm. That's when I tend to use VR/IS the most on a zoom telephoto, when camera shake can be most evident. Sometimes I'm trading off a slower shutter speed for more DOF thought too. And remember, not all lenses are the same. Unfortunately it's not unheard of to get a lemon of a certain lens. While my VR seemed to work well and the lens was sharp. It just couldn't lock focus worth a dang.

If you're using dual strobes for your macro work I don't think you'd need the VR but the AF-S would be nice even though many use a macro in manual focus.

 

[HowardE]

Yes, even when zoomed to 200mm. That's when I tend to use VR/IS the most on a zoom telephoto, when camera shake can be most evident. Sometimes I'm trading off a slower shutter speed for more DOF thought too. And remember, not all lenses are the same. Unfortunately it's not unheard of to get a lemon of a certain lens. While my VR seemed to work well and the lens was sharp. It just couldn't lock focus worth a dang.

If you're using dual strobes for your macro work I don't think you'd need the VR but the AF-S would be nice even though many use a macro in manual focus.

The focus lock was another issue that my friend mentioned. Probably because the lens element is in constant motion on the gyroscope??

 

[bladephotog]

The focus lock was another issue that my friend mentioned. Probably because the lens element is in constant motion on the gyroscope??

I had this problem even when the VR was turned off. It was killing me shooting sports. It was especially bad on low contrast subjects. I mean, low contrast subjects are tough for any lens but my 70-200 VR was atrocious at this. My Canon is much, much better. Two other photogs at my paper turned theirs back in for an 80-200 AF-S. But I've heard from other people who don't have this problem. Who knows?