another question ulet: nakocompensate ba ng wide aperture ang camera shake? the biggest ive known sa is f1.4. Sa case 1.Aperture priority 2.broad daylight 3.hand-held, the camera will select a fast shutter kaya less ang motion/shake blur. (mali ba?)

if this is so, non-VR lens na lang pag-iipunan ko. mahal kase ng VR lens e.

another question ulet: nakocompensate ba ng wide aperture ang camera shake? the biggest ive known sa is f1.4. Sa case 1.Aperture priority 2.broad daylight 3.hand-held, the camera will select a fast shutter kaya less ang motion/shake blur. (mali ba?)

if this is so, non-VR lens na lang pag-iipunan ko. mahal kase ng VR lens e.

A wide aperture may or may not compensate for camera shake. The main thing that a wide aperture gives you is the ability to shoot at a faster speed when shooting at low light. An example, using the rule of thumb that the minimum shutter speed to use is 1/x of your lens' focal length, if you have a 50mm lens, then your minimum shutter speed should be 1/60th of a second. If you are shooting in low light and you meter using aperture priority, say you are using f/4.5, the camera might say that you need a shutter speed of 1/30th of a second. Now, this is lower than the recommended speed (accoring the the rule of thumb). To compensate, you could increase your aperture, to say f/2.8, and now if you meter again, the camera might say that the speed now is 1/60th. Now, you can shoot, hand-held. With a VR lens, you can still shoot at 1/30th at f/4.5 and have little or no camera shake noticeable.

One thing you have to take note of, though, is that if you use a wide aperture your depth of field will also decrease. So if you are shooting groups in low light, even if you have a wide lens, say f/2.8, it just won't cut it. If you don't have a VR lens, I suggest using a tripod.

Oh, and VR lenses aren't that expensive (as compared to fixed aperture lenses). You can get the 18-200 Nikon VR for just over $700, or the new 18-135 (to be released soon) for less than $400. It is actually lenses that have fixed wide aperture that costs a lot. The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is around $1200 while the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is around $1600.

Hope this helps.

Marco

Derek, there are no shortcuts... even if you have the best VR or IS lenses, if you have poor technique or camera support or if you do not compensate your exposure settings for a fast/moving subject... You'll end up with blurry captures. :)

PS: Marco nailed most of the technical info already above... The rest of the practice is up to you... Always test your technique...

All the Best. :)

...(accoring the the rule of thumb). To compensate, you could increase your aperture, to say f/2.8, and now if you meter again, the camera might say that the speed now is 1/60th. Now...
One thing ...wide aperture your depth of field will also decrease. So if you are shooting groups in low light...thanks marco. nakalimutan ko nga pala hindi lagi kelangan malake ang diaphragm lalo na pag group shot. kelangan din pala liitan for depth of field.

Oh, and VR lenses aren't that expensive (as compared to fixed aperture lenses). You can get the 18-200 Nikon VR for just over $700, or the new 18-135 (to be released soon) for less than $400...so magkano sa pesos yun? hang on ill use my calculator. mukang ok yung 18-135! pero ano kaya aperture nya?
Derek, there are no shortcuts... if you have poor technique or camera support or if you do not compensate your exposure settings... The rest of the practice is up to you... Always test your technique...

All the Best. :)thanks earl!

so magkano sa pesos yun? hang on ill use my calculator. mukang ok yung 18-135! pero ano kaya aperture nya?


The 18-135mm is not a VR lens. It is f/3.5 - 5.6. If you got money to spare or some more time to save, I'll save for the 18-200 VR.

Cheers!

Marco

PS:

For review/info on 18-135, go here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-135.htm).

For review/info on 18-200, go here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm).

For review/info on 18-135, go here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-135.htm).

For review/info on 18-200, go here (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm).it says those lens has poor bokeh. so my next question is: will a 2.8 lens enough to produce good bokeh? is a 2.8 good enough for low-light condition?

it says those lens has poor bokeh. so my next question is: will a 2.8 lens enough to produce good bokeh? is a 2.8 good enough for low-light condition?

If you really need a good bokeh, the Nikon AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm) is just over a hundred dollars more than the 18-200VR. Now, this is a great lens. It is also very sharp. It focuses very fast too. If you have more money to spare, the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm) is touted to replace this lens. But for twice the price of the non-VR? Hmmm, I need to think about it. These two lenses are professional lenses. Very well built.

A question for you: Are you willing to lose the 18-80mm focal length and shell out extra cash to get another lens for that focal length in exchange for a good bokeh? The Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm) is another $1,200 investment.

so my next question is: will a 2.8 lens enough to produce good bokeh? is a 2.8 good enough for low-light condition?

Nope... Having a lens aperture of 2.8, even if it's consistent, will not be the only determining factor for good bokeh.
----------------------------------
Generally Yes. A 2.8 lens is good enough for most low light condition shots; provided that it's a constant aperture lens... However, of course you can still opt for something faster; specially if you are into indoor sports. :)

Nope... Having a lens aperture of 2.8, even if it's consistent, will not be the only determining factor for good bokeh.
----------------------------------
Generally Yes. A 2.8 lens is good enough for most low light condition shots; provided that it's a constant aperture lens... However, of course you can still opt for something faster; specially if you are into indoor sports. :)

I agree, the constant 2.8 aperture is not the only determining factor in getting a good bokeh. But comparing the 2.8 lens I mentioned above to the original cheaper lens I mentioned before, the difference in bokeh is noticeable. That may also be due to the difference in the maximum aperture, we are comparing a 2.8 versus a 3.5.

I agree, the constant 2.8 aperture is not the only determining factor in getting a good bokeh. But comparing the 2.8 lens I mentioned above to the original cheaper lens I mentioned before, the difference in bokeh is noticeable. That may also be due to the difference in the maximum aperture, we are comparing a 2.8 versus a 3.5.

:) Really Marco, there are so many factors... and what complicates it is that there's no singularity in it... It's mostly a combination of factors that help achieve good bokeh.

... If one takes into consideration why a 80-200 or a 70-200 VR has better bokeh than the 18-200 DX VR; let's just say for illustration purposes, at the longest end which is at 200mm... Both 80-200 and 70-200 VR are FF lenses which have extra light passing through them/While the 18-200 DX VR is a DX sweetspot lens... Even at the long end they can still have aperture of 2.8/The DX VR stops itself down to 5.6... The lens construction is also quite different; on the 80-200 and 70-200, notice the size and spacing of glass elements in relation to their general focal length range. While the DX VR lens is made relatively compact and spans itself crammed from a wide angle to telephoto... This also raises the argument of the nature of the lens. Both 2.8s are telephoto zooms; while their DX brother is a wide angle-telephoto zoom. Thus the DX inherits characteristic DOF of a WA lens... etc... and so on and so forth... The key here is that though lenses such as the 18-200 or 18-135 have a very good workable focal range; bokeh is one characteristic of these lenses which needs some compromise. :Grin: