Nikon DX lens vs. VR lens

snowalkersnowalker Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
edited August 23, 2008 in Cameras
Hi everyone,
I have to buy a Nikon D60 and sell my Nikon 70s which is working with 18-55mm DX.
The question is, is there a big difference between DX and VR lens?
In this case its worth to sell the DX lens or is good to keep it for the new D60?
VR lens is coming regularly with D60.
I'm gonna use the new D60 in low light conditions and I need to know if VR lens is really helpful in this situation or I can use DX without no problems.
Anyway I have a steady hand.
Thanks

Comments

  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited August 21, 2008
    snowalker wrote:
    Hi everyone,
    I have to buy a Nikon D60 and sell my Nikon 70s which is working with 18-55mm DX.
    The question is, is there a big difference between DX and VR lens?
    In this case its worth to sell the DX lens or is good to keep it for the new D60?
    VR lens is coming regularly with D60.
    I'm gonna use the new D60 in low light conditions and I need to know if VR lens is really helpful in this situation or I can use DX without no problems.
    Anyway I have a steady hand.
    Thanks

    DX is Nikon-speak for the crop 1.5x format camera specific lenses. It implies a reduced image circle to cover the smaller imagers used in Nikon DX cameras.

    VR is Nikon-speak for "Vibration Reduction" and is an in-lens design to reduce types of camera shake.

    The two terms can be, and are, used at the same time in particular lenses.

    While the VR technology can help somewhat in reducing shakiness during longer exposures, it does not replace physical supports (like tripods, etc.) nor does it replace large aperture lenses.

    The ideal low-light lens would have both a large aperture and shake reduction.

    While DX lenses are designed to be used on the Nikon crop cameras, I think both the D3 and the D700 have the ability to use them in a "DX/crop" mode. FX lenses, those designed for full-frame Nikon cameras including 35mm film cameras, can be used on both DX and FX cameras.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • snowalkersnowalker Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited August 21, 2008
    thanks!
    For the beginning I want to thanks to you for the large introduction.
    I know some things about photography and my concerns are about if the VR lens is real good in low light situations. In my case if it makes the difference or is the same, with DX.
    A friend of mine was token some pictures in Las Vegas during night time (I know That in Las Vegas are no more nights...) with Nikon D60 +18-55mm VR and although there was no tripod the pictures was very very good, of course on a higher ISO.
    Is there anybody using VR lenses? It really reduce the shakes? It worth to buy one?
    Thanks!
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited August 21, 2008
    It might be worth doing a search.

    DX lenses ONLY work on DX format cameras, or the D3 and D700 in "crop mode" Basically, they only cover the DX sensor size, which is smaller than than an FX sensor. So don't worry about DX or non DX, UNLESS you plan on getting a D3 or D700 in the next year or two. Then you might want to stay away from DX lenses as they'll be less useful on the FX frame cameras coming to market (which for Nikon are over $3,000 at this time.)

    VR is something completely different. DX and non-DX lenses can have vibration reduction. I've got a Sigma 18-200 which has Vibration reduction and it only works on DX cameras (such as the D60) I also have a Nikon 70-200 VR lens that works on both DX and FX (full frame, such as the D3 or D700)

    If you do a search you can find many reviews about VR and what it does for people. Canon calls it IS (image stabilization) Sigma calls it OS (optical stabilization) and Nikon calls it VR (vibration reduction.) Its all basically the same thing.

    Does it work? Yes. You can hand hold a slower shutter speeds with less blur. I've hand held at dusk where fixed objects are very sharp yet people are tremendously blured. That would be more difficult without VR. Its hard tto say exactly how well it works. VR can only do so much so if you are standing on a jack hammer, then you may see little improvement.

    Note how the food cart is very sharp, but the people are all blurred. VR only works on things that are not moving.
    300_9065.jpg

    One thing that VR won't do is freeze action. If you hope to see moving dancers frozen in space, it won't help. VR only helps to reduce your movement, not the subjects movement.


    You might want to go onto Nikon's website and look up all of the codes you'll find on lenses and what they mean. Every maker adds their own codes too and you'll be easily confused as you see HSM AFS USM APO DC VR DG OS IS DX , etc) on this lens or that lense. It helps to know exactly what each lens does.
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,133 moderator
    edited August 21, 2008
    snowalker wrote:
    ... A friend of mine was token some pictures in Las Vegas during night time (I know That in Las Vegas are no more nights...) with Nikon D60 +18-55mm VR and although there was no tripod the pictures was very very good, of course on a higher ISO.
    Is there anybody using VR lenses? It really reduce the shakes? It worth to buy one?
    Thanks!

    VR technology will definitely "help" with camera shake, but it does not cure camera shake.

    The Nikkor 18-55mm, f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR is an upgrade over the similar lens without the VR. It appears to produce better images at larger apertures.

    A tripod is definitely a better technology than VR in reducing camera shake when used correctly.

    DX has no impact on VR.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • jonh68jonh68 Registered Users Posts: 2,711 Major grins
    edited August 22, 2008
    If you like walking around without a tri-pod, or you find the type of shots you like do not allow for a quick set up of a tri or monopod, VR is well worth it.
  • snowalkersnowalker Registered Users Posts: 66 Big grins
    edited August 22, 2008
    Thanks all
    First of all I really apreciate your replays.
    I got today a good answer, a practical answer for my concerns:
    " normally if you can shoot at 1/30th of a second, you would probably be able to shoot at 1/8th of a second, maybe 1/4th with VR."
    Thanks all!
  • InsuredDisasterInsuredDisaster Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
    edited August 22, 2008
    snowalker wrote:
    First of all I really apreciate your replays.
    I got today a good answer, a practical answer for my concerns:
    " normally if you can shoot at 1/30th of a second, you would probably be able to shoot at 1/8th of a second, maybe 1/4th with VR."
    Thanks all!

    I once shot a pretty sharp shot at 1 second exposure.
  • Tim KamppinenTim Kamppinen Registered Users Posts: 816 Major grins
    edited August 23, 2008
    Mind if I ask why you're getting rid of the D70 in favor of the D60? As far as I know it's not really an upgrade, especially since the D60 only autofocuses with AF-S lenses, which tend to be more expensive and of which there is a more limited selection. If you plan to expand your lens collection in the future, which you probably will even if you don't plan on it now, this could be an important consideration. I found this out because I have a D40, with the same limitation, and started with a 18-200 VR, which is a great lens, (and the VR does really help reduce camera shake, BTW) but now I'm somewhat regretting my short-sightedness as some great cheap lenses (like the 50mm 1.8) will not autofocus with my camera. Just something to think about... If you don't have a really good reason to go to the D60 the money would probably be much better spent on a new lens, or a flash, or something else that would actually allow you to take photos that you couldn't before.

    EDIT: Ok, I just looked at the OP again and realized that you have a 70s, not a D70s, which is what I thought you wrote originally. So most of what I wrote is pointless, although if you didn't know about the autofocus deal with the D60 I guess it's still something to think about. You might want to consider the D80 or even a used D70 or D50 for the greater lens compatibility.
Sign In or Register to comment.