# ED II or VR?



## Markw (Nov 26, 2009)

I got a chance to play around with the Nikon D3000 and 18-55mm DX VR lens the other day.  I dont have a stock lens that would have come with my D90, I have the Nikon 28-80mm F/3.3-5.6.  Well, Ive decided that I really like the feel and design of the 18-55mm lens I used, and I would like to get one.  The question I have is, would it be better to get theNikon_18-55mm_F/3.3-5.6G_ED_II_AF-S_DX_Nikkor_Lens (typo..3.5, not 3.3)or the Nikon_18-55mm_F/3.5-5.6_AF-S_DX_VR_Nikkor_Lens?  I know its a personal choice, but does the ED II have better image quality than the VR version because of this?  Or instead of these, would it be better just to save for the Nikon_18-70mm_F/3.5-4.5G_ED_IF_AF-S_DX_Nikkor_Les (typo.  lens..not les)?

Thank you.
Mark


----------



## Markw (Nov 26, 2009)

Anyone?

Mark


----------



## PatrickHMS (Nov 26, 2009)

I believe that the concensus of answers you will get here, is that for 55mm and less, like the 18-55mm, the VR is not at all necessary.

And for the 55-22mm, and for lenses of longer focal lengths, the VR can be very useful, though there will be times you cannot use it, and will need to know when to turn it off to shoot without it.

Yesterday I saw a 55-200mm non VR lens for sale around here that I was thinking about buying and playing with, then reselling it if I decided I like my VR version better.


----------



## chip (Nov 26, 2009)

for the 18-55mm I don't think VR is absolutely required but probably doesn't hurt. You can turn it off if you want. For a more telephoto lens VR is definitely a big plus.


----------



## Markw (Nov 27, 2009)

Thats what I was thinking.  I dont have any troubles with holding the 28-80 still long enough, never have.  My 70-300, now.  Thats a different story.  Once I reach the longer end of the lens, it requires a fairly steady hand.  How much of a difference does the ED glass element make?

Mark


----------



## chip (Nov 28, 2009)

Nikon Extra-low dispersion (ED) glass is used to correct for chromatic aberration or color fringes. I think today most lenses contain some ED glass elements. Many newer Nikon cameras automatically remove the effects of chromatic aberration via software (or DSP) and they really work very well. You can also use Photoshop to do the same. I would say VR is more important than ED. If you are shooting macro or telephoto shots and you don't have VR on your lens, the picture may well turn out blurry. There are almost nothing Photoshop can do to help. VR allows you to shoot with a slower shutter speed and still produce sharp pictures.


----------



## CWN (Nov 28, 2009)

Having owned and used both, I prefer the VR version but both are nice kit lenses. I would however recommend something like the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 over either one.


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 28, 2009)

Personally, I stopped using VS/IS all together. Few weeks ago while shooting (depress the shutter release 1/2 way-> lock focus -> recompose -> shoot) I've noticed that while I was recomposing the lens was doing something funky and moving like - _I dunno_. I tried the same both on nikon and canon glass. At first it was a bit weird so I repeated it and SAME THING. How is it that I never noticed it before, I *have no clue* but past images came out fine (no problems). point being, since half my glass is from old Nikon film days and doesn't have VR, it isn't a feature that I need to spend extra $ on. That is my take on that. 
18-55 ED, I used to have back in the day. Personally, it is an _ok_ lens if you want to learn photography or just basic walk around stuff. But once you get more involved in it, i think it is a bit weak in its performance (soft, distortion, focusing). 
18-70, in my opinion is better of the 3. Besides the fact that you'll cover all of the focal lenght of the other 2, it is a 4.5 rather then 5.6. Depending on your shooting style, you never know when you'll need that extra 2/3rd of a stop thus it might prove relevant to you. 
Be it me, I'd get the 18-70, actually I'm thinking of borrowing/buying it from my father-in-law. He has _no use_ for his D70 with that lens, I might as well put to work ~ On the other hand, I'm saving for D700 and my current lens will work just find with it


----------



## Markw (Nov 28, 2009)

What does everyone think about the Amazon.com: Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo?

Mark


----------



## IgsEMT (Nov 28, 2009)

> What does everyone think about the Amazon.com: Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX Nikkor Zoom Lens: Camera & Photo?


I like it. Often I burrow it from pops-in-law. _I Like it!_


----------



## Markw (Nov 28, 2009)

Thanks for the quick reply!  Anyone else?  I found it for $185.  Better to pay the $185 for the 18-70 than the $160 for the 18-55 VR?

Mark


----------



## Markw (Nov 28, 2009)

Bump one last time.

Mark


----------



## chip (Nov 29, 2009)

The 18-70 is a better lens


----------

