Will a faster non-VR lens mounted on a monopod outperform a VR of equal focal length?

Question

If one already owns a few expensive fast non-VR lenses, the question is academic - but if starting from scratch, what is the best choice. I get the impression that a faster lens will make the 2 stops advantage of VR irrelevant - and give you more flexibility overall. No Cannon v Nikon nit-picking please :-)

Answer 1

Shooting anything on a monopod will outperform anything handheld. A monopod gives you another level of support that handholding alone won't give you.

A VR lens will help you alleviate minor camera shake, but it won't completely prevent it. Basically it allows you to shoot 2 stops slower, so if you can take a decent shot at say 1/60 of a second, you should (theoretically) be able to take that same shot at 1/15.

If I were starting from scracth, I would get VR (or IS) on any long telephoto or zoom lens I bought. I would also get the fastest lens I could afford. Nikon makes a -Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR Zoom which will be my next lens. I was looking at the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR NIKKOR Zoom, but to me, having a constant f/2.8 throughout the entire zoom range makes the difference in cost worth it.

Answer 2

As the previous respondant mentioned, VR (AKA IS on the Canon system) is useless for stopping subject motion.

This is a common argument among Canon shooters: which lens to buy for the same price? The 70-200 f/4IS or the f/2.8 non IS. The f/4 has "4 stop" IS, which means that one can shoot a static subject handheld somewhere in the realm of 1/15 second at 200mm... which is just ridiculous. So for a static subject, one can shoot the 4/IS in much lower light than the 2.8. However, for sports photography the IS does nothing to stop motion, and 2.8 is the difference between 1/125 sec and 1/250 sec.... or getting a sharp shot and not.

Certainly, if you have the ability to do so, choose both speed and VR/IS (IE the 70-200 2.8IS). However, a larger aperture will help with both moving and static subjects, as well as giving you faster AF and more DOF options... so if I had to pick one, I'd go with fast glass every time.

And a monopod can really help with sharp prints, especially under adverse conditions. I'll always use one if given the opportunity.

So to summarize: shooting sports? No question that you need fast glass. Static subjects, VR may be a more cost effective option.

Answer 3

This is an interesting theoretic question and you have three excellent answers above me already.

Personally, I think that YOU are the only one who can answer this question. Once you get down to the fine points, the answer would be "it all depends." It depends on your own stability and it depends on the focal length and aperture you are using. It also depends on what you mean by "outperform."

For instance, if you had a 200 mm prime lens at f/2.0, would it be more stable than a 70-200 zoom set at 200 mm and f/2.8 with VR? How about the 18-200 zoom set at 200 mm and f/5.6 (max available) with VR? The prime lens would probably be better than the 18-200 @ f/5.6, but probably quite similar to the 70-200 @ f/2.8. Of course, if you had the $4,000 Nikon 200 mm f/2.0 VR lens, the whole question wouldn't matter, would it? ;-)

As far as "more flexibility," consider how limiting it would be to carry a monopod with you and decide when to use it. You will miss a LOT of shots! Don't forget that the faster lens means a wider aperture. There may be situations where you want to use something like f/8 or so for depth of field and you will want the VR to allow you to hand-hold the lens at the lower shutter speed required. VR is not just for low-light applications.

I own the Nikon 18-200 VR as well as the Nikon 70-300 VR. I am lusting after the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 (fixed maximum aperture) VR lens.... I would rather have that than any non-VR lens that I can find in the comparable focal length range, such as the 80-200 f/2.8 non-VR lens. My wife owns the 55-200 VR lens. I doubt I would buy a zoom that was not VR at this point. It just seems like a bad way to spend the money. I would consider a non-VR prime lens, though, for those huge apertures...

Answer 4

A monopod is not so much for stability as it is for support of a heavy camera & lens combination. It adds some stability but not like a tripod. I'll take a guess and say you're interested in sports photography. The "Rule of Hand-Holding A Lens" has always been to keep your shutter speed as a reciprocal of the focal length. In other words, with a 400mm lens you'd want your shutter speed to be 1/500 sec. If a VR lens allows you to use 1/125 sec. (2 stops) then you tell me if its better.

Of course, shutter speed is dependent on the amount of light you have, the f-stop you choose and the ISO you're shooting with.

You must also remember that a zoom lens may have 2 f-stops as its maximum - perhaps f3.5 at 70mm and f6.5 at 300mm. At f6.5 a lens is very slow. Other zooms may have only one maximum f-stop, say f2.8. Even then it may not perform as well as a fixed-focal length lens of the same f-stop. Why? Because there is light fall-off (with even the best lenses) as the light travels through all the elements needed to make up a zoom lens. So f6.5 may perform closer to f8, f2.8 closer to f4.

Obviously if you're shooting outside on a bright bright sunshiney day there is less of a problem. When you have cloudy conditions or night games is where it gets tricky. Then you want all the lens speed you can get unless you plan to shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 and hope the Noise Reduction circuitry works or one of the editing programs can fix it.

Lets look at the FotoSharp (fotosharp.com) "Day & Night Exposure Guide", Scene # 7, 'Sports With Stadium Lights'

At ISO 800

f2 @ 1/500 sec.
f2.8 @ 1/250 sec.
f4 @ 1/125 sec.
f5.6 @ 1/60 sec.
f8 @ 1/30 sec.

At ISO 1600

f2 2 1/1000 sec.
f2.8 @ 1/500 sec.
f4 @ 1/250 sec.
f5.6 @ 1/125 sec.
f8 @ 1/60 sec.

At ISO 3200

f2 @ 1/2000 sec.
f2.8 @ 1/1000 sec.
f4 @ 1/500 sec.
f5.6 @ 1/250 sec.
f8 @ 1/125 sec.

As you can easily see the faster the lens the better for keeping the ISO lower.

Hope this helps in some way.

Answer 5

I don't use IS myself. Up to about 400 mm I can get pretty good results with a monopod and good camera technique. After 400, it's time to break out the tripod. However, I learned way back with film and before they even had autofocus.

A couple of years ago, I think it was that long ago, I read a test between IS and using a monopod. The monopod (with good technique) won. IS trounced handheld in all circumstances.

The thing about IS is that it is correcting for camera movement. It's not really giving you a speed increase. Under the circumstance I shoot a lot in, a faster lens is infinitely better. My subjects move and IS doesn't do anything about that. Being able to take a sharp image at 1/15 sec isn't anywhere near as valuable as taking the same shot at 1/30 or 1/60.

You could, of course, up the ISO with IS to get the same shutter speed, but your noise goes up. Since I am already shooting at ISO 800 to 1600 and sometimes 3200, IS isn't going to help me. Anybody who wants to keep their shutter speed up and the noise down wants a faster lens.

For me, there is another consideration that nobody seems to mention. A faster lens gives you a brighter viewfinder image. This is a big plus in low light situations. It makes manual focusing much more positive under these circumstances. Even with the split image rangefinder screen I have, it is much better with a faster lens.

Now, if you are handholding a slow lens and the shutter speeds are dropping below the lens focal length and don't have a monopod then IS is the way to go.

I think your impression is the correct one. In the real world, my vote goes to the faster lens.

Addenda:

I hadn't seen Evans post, it came in while I was thinking about this. The only thing I have added is the viewfinder brightness factor, which matters to me more than it may to some.

Vance

Answer 6

Firstly you haven't specified an application in my particular field (concert photography) it's ideal to have a fast lens AND VR/IS due to the dark lighting conditions, where running a lens with f2.8 simply isn't enough on it's own.

If you're using it for field sports and shooting for motion stopping action shots (usually 1/500 and above) a monopod will make little difference to camera shake, but for sports, a monopod is ideal (ever tried to hold a camera and long lens in front of your face for 45 minutes?) to help carry the weight

To answer your question very generally though, there are trade offs with everything,

a fast lens gives you greater flexibility, the trade off is cost,

VR/IS will give you more stability allowing for a slower shutter speed, reducing camera shake, but if you use this *instead* of a faster lens (f2.8) then you'll likely be trading quality of lens/image (compared with its slower equivalent)

It's the same thing as the zoom/prime trade-off where zoom gives you flexibility, trade off is it's much heavier and lower quality images (due to the number of glass elements when compared to the prime lenses)

If starting from scratch in an ideal world (if money were not an issue) you'd buy Pro Level lenses with VR/IS, both Nikon and Canon have examples of these with things like the 70-200 f2.8 VR/IS. Trade off is price.

I can't be more specific without a more specific question.

T.

Answer 7

First of all, if the subject is in motion, VR does absolutely nothing for preventing subject blur.

For stopping the motion of a moving subject, the only thing that works is a higher shutter speed. If ISO is kept constant(which those of us who shoot film have to do for at least 36 frames as a matter of course, anyway), the only way to get a faster shutter speed is a larger aperture. This is the reason why you see 400mm 2.8s on the sidelines of sporting events.

Regarding monopod vs. VR:

My one big lens is a manual focus Canon 400mm 4.5. At around 3.5 pounds and a little over 2 feet long, I find it a bit unwieldy to handhold(especially when mounted to a 5 pound camera, like a motor driven F-1), although it's doable in a pinch. When handholding, I find it necessary to use a shutter speed of at least 1/750, or often 1/1000, to account for the difficulty of holding a lens that large still.

On a monopod, which is my standard configuration for the lens, I can easily get great results at 1/125, for a 2.5 stop improvement over normal handholding.

With care, I've gone as low as 1/30 with the 400mm on a monopod, and gotten reasonably sharp results. This is a 4 and a half stop improvement over handholding.

So, in this case, I would seriously doubt that VR would be all that much of an advantage on this lens as compared to a monopod.