# Nikon DX lens vs. VR lens



## snowalker

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


----------



## SpeedTrap

Well I think you might have your terminology a bit confused;
DX is a lens that is specifically designed for crop digital sensors
VR is Vibration Reduction

So you can get a DX lens with VR.

What you should be looking at is faster lenses if you would like to shoot in low light.  VR helps, but if you have a lens with an aperture of F2.8 you will be able to shoot with faster shutter speeds and will not need VR.

The funny thing is, most of the new F2.8 Zoom Lenses come with VR as well.


----------



## Bifurcator

I'm not sure you can actually claim that VR isn't needed if you have f/1.2 or something. It doesn't really work like that - even tho it is kind of related. What about when you want f/22 or f/32 or something? Also what about low light was the meter says f/1.2 is a shutter speed of 1/10 of a second? I see both situations popping up allot. With an f/1.2 or 1.4 lens you might need VR less (maybe) but having fast glass really doesn't eliminate the need for VR.

On the other hand VR does in more circumstances, eliminate the need for fast (expensive) glass. Especially if it's the Minolta (now Sony) in camera mechanism that's being compared.


----------



## Big Mike

> On the other hand VR does in more circumstances, eliminate the need for fast (expensive) glass. Especially if it's the Minolta (now Sony) in camera mechanism that's being compared.


Only when your subjects aren't moving.  VR (or IS or the Sony system) only fight blur from camera shake...the slow shutter speeds will still give you blur if the subjects are in motion.

Another (similar) debate is whether you can get by without fast lenses, if you use the improved high ISO performance of the newer cameras.  You can get your shutter speeds up by using ISO 1600 or 3200 or 6400 etc.  Although you don't get the same DOF at F4 that you get at F2.8 etc.


----------



## Bifurcator

Big Mike said:


> Only when your subjects aren't moving.  VR (or IS or the Sony system) only fight blur from camera shake...the slow shutter speeds will still give you blur if the subjects are in motion.



The Minolta/Sony system also affects subject motion IF the subject in question is filling 90% or 100% of the frame and also when the motion is uniform. For example driving on the freeway it tries very hard to freeze the fences and trees that are whizzing by - it does a pretty good job at it too. Another example would be a flower macro where the flower it blowing around in the breeze. Here's an example of that: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1335122&postcount=4 This flower was blowing in and out of the frame completely. It was on a long stem and rocking in the breeze about a foot or more back and forth.

Another example would be a close up of a nervous horse's or elephant's head.

So it does fight both camera shake and subject motion blur.  It's won't fight the blur of a bouncing ball in a shorts shot or a fly flying around though (if it's only a small portion of the total frame).


----------



## Trenton Romulox

I personally opt for VR if it's available in the lens that I want. But, I mostly only have fast lenses, so I don't necessarily need VR a lot; but I mean, why turn it down? The only reason to opt for a lens that doesn't have VR is when cost is an issue, and that's understandable. I'd say VR is more important in longer (physically) and heavier lenses. That's the big advantage of lens vibration reduction versus camera body reduction is that the camera is rarely what's shaking, it's more often than not the lens itself. So, to answer your question; VR is good, but not 100% necessary. And fast lenses are great, more important than VR, but also not 100% necessary. But, I mean, DOF is important for some types of shots; so keep that in mind when choosing a lens. I definitely rambled a lot here, my bad.


----------



## Bifurcator

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Another (similar) debate is whether you can get by without fast lenses, if you use the improved high ISO performance of the newer cameras.



I think this is the best equalizer and applies across all situations. f/1.2 at ISO100 has the same DOF as f/1.2 at ISO 3200. :thumbup:


----------



## snowalker

Ok, I need to explain exactly my situation...
A friend of mine has a Nikon D60 + 18-55mm VR. Was taken some picture in Las Vegas in the night time. Anyway there are a lot of lights... Was using higher ISO. So, I have to sell my camera and I want to know if I'll keep my lens 18-55mm DX I can take night  pictures at the same quality or is really necessarily to have that lens from kit, 18-55mm VR, like I saw in an offer (Nikon D60 + 18-55mm VR = $620 on BH)...? 
This 18-55 VR how good is in percent in reducing the shakes?
I don't have enough money now to buy 1.4 or 1.8 lens right now...
Thanks all!


----------



## photogincollege

Well you should know its 18-55 dx vr.  Its for cropped sensors and has vr.  But to the argument, It will probably give you 2, maybe 3 stops of handholdablity so 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.  But like stated above, remember that if the subject is moving, your still going to have subject blur from motion.


----------



## snowalker

photogincollege said:


> Well you should know its 18-55 dx vr.  Its for cropped sensors and has vr.  But to the argument, It will probably give you 2, maybe 3 stops of handholdablity so 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.  But like stated above, remember that if the subject is moving, your still going to have subject blur from motion.



Thanks! This is really help me to understand practically the difference between VR and a non-VR lens. Thanks a lot!


----------



## photogincollege

Glad to help .


----------



## Sw1tchFX

snowalker said:


> Hi everyone,
> I have to buy a Nikon D60 and sell my Nikon 70s which is working with 18-55mm DX.



You're getting rid of your D70 for a piddly D60? Are you serious?


----------



## Rogan

i was gna saY GOING FROM A d70S  to a d60 seems a downgrade to me


----------



## JerryPH

It *is* a downgrade. The D70s can sync at near any speed (but native sync speed is 1/500th), making shots extremely interesting. The D60:
- has no lens focous motor
- is limited to a 1/250th sync speed

Why people don't do their homework before spending money is simply beyond me... but hey, if Ashton Kutcher can shoot weddings with a D60, well you know what comes next... lol


----------



## photogincollege

Yeah i'd stick with the d70s as well.


----------



## sburatorul

as much as i love my d60 i would not give up the d70s... no way... if you want a new camera at least get the d80 or the d300  if you can afford it


----------



## blue534

hi. you say that the 18-55mm VR is slower than normal 18-55mm. if we turn off the VR system in lens, does it make faster? like normal 18-55mm? and can i use the 18-55mm VR with nikon d40??? and is it good to take photos in macro with VR system? thanks for your replies


----------



## photogincollege

This threads pretty old, its usually not good to revive super dead threads.  But your new so it alright.  The 18-55 vr is the same speed as the non vr version.  Both the non vr and vr versions will be fine on the d40.  Generally with macro you will use a tripod, and on a tripod you will want to turn vr off.  Also, vr does not help subject motion blur.


----------

