Comments on: Is Scott Kelby joking?

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:12:36 +0000

I will post an update briefly.

By: Theodore P.

Theodore P. — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:11:30 +0000

NR – can you update the main post or take it down now?http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/2713

By: lnbolch

lnbolch — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 01:01:37 +0000

Anyone who shoots architectural interiors knows the value of a big solid tripod with the superwides we use. A lens as short as 14mm DOES suffer from camera movement, though it may not be as obvious as it is with a long lens.

Hand-holding in available darkness, any additional stability is an asset, no matter the shortness of focal length. VR II in a lens means that I am shooting at ISO3200 or ISO6400 instead of ISO25,600, meaning better image quality.

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:34:35 +0000

No no, you guys missed it. The other format is .dng “digital negative” from Adobe. Adobe is trying to get the world to switch over to .dng because in their practical minds it makes perfect sense. It’s a generic “raw” format that could be recorded directly by any camera (Canon, Nikon, Olympus). This way, according to Adobe, in 10 years you would have folders of .dng files archived instead of D200 NEF files, D300 NEF files, D400 NEF files, D500 NEF files, etc. etc. etc. It would provide a smooth transition from new camera to new camera. As it is now, you have a different unique RAW file for each camera which could be problematic for photographers/businesses that archive work for years (decades); compatibility issues could come up with software. So Adobe has been trying to push the big companies to switch to .dng and for Adobe that makes the most sense as future software won’t need to support new RAW files every few months plus past RAW files.

By: Alan@shotlivephoto.c

Alan@shotlivephoto.c — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 05:11:07 +0000

Scott kids around.
It’s a joke.

By: Ranger 9

Ranger 9 — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:32:09 +0000

Gotta agree with this. VR adds a lot of utility to a lens, especially a long one, but it may force compromises in image quality. In addition to the problem with keeping the elements centered, there are others; a couple that occur to me offhand are:

– Not every lens design lends itself to VR (which requires a small, light group near the center that can be moved to stabilize the image), so deciding to make a VR lens may require a less-than-ideal optical design.
– VR generally needs some extra refractive elements, which means lower contrast, higher flare potential and more difficult assembly; not a major factor when you’re talking about a big zoom that already has a lot of elements, but potentially a big issue in, say, a 50/1.4.

Lens designers are always having to decide on compromises between ultimate image quality and utility (small size, low weight, wide zoom range, low cost, etc.) and VR is just another factor they have to consider. When making a very expensive lens designed for serious users (who are more likely than most to use a tripod when necessary) it may make sense for them to lean toward higher image quality rather than the greater utility of VR.

Of course what we all want is a small, light, cheap lens with a wide zoom range, a large maximum aperture, a very close minimum focusing distance, great flare resistance, the convenience of VR, and sensational optical performance… but hey, no free lunch!

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:21:09 +0000

LOL! And it is all wireless, right – the Internet is so 1990…

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:15:16 +0000

Thanks for the clarification Scott Kelby (if this is really you)!
Happy Holidays!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 13:21:23 +0000

wider lens has deeper depth of focus…..

shoot with 200mm lens and and try 18mm

you will see why……

By: Mariozi

Mariozi — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 10:21:12 +0000

exactly…

By: Stereohans

Stereohans — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 09:56:31 +0000

A VR is useful i low light but normally doesn’t improve the optical quality of a lens. There were good reasons for Nikon NOT to include VR in their pro line 24-70 and 14-24 regarding they had high ISO bodies in line. With VR it is impossible to centrate a lens as well due to those movable parts in the optical system. If you compare the newer Canon 2,8/70-200 IS against the older version without stabilization, sharpness and contrast (using a tripod to exclude inluences of camera or hand shake) of the lens without VR/IS are significantly better. After all I like stabilized lenses – but not in terms of maximum IQ.

Regards, Hans

By: Erez

Erez — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 09:37:15 +0000

He’s full BS.
There isn’t any such lens, nor will be one.

By: Brandon

Brandon — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 08:09:14 +0000

Thnx for clearing this up Scott, you’re a good man to even notice something like this thread during this time of year. Stop working for once!

My own two cents… sure VR on a 14-24 wouldn’t be as effective, but people forget that we pay a huge premium for a f/2.8 lens, so even if it did offer only a 1-stop advantage, I would be all for it. Even more so on the 24 end of it, and more still on a 50. Personally, I think a 28mm 1.4 with VR would be the ultimate night-shot lens, and I would pay quite a bit for it. But I doubt it would happen.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:00:55 +0000

Chris
Posted December 24, 2008 at 7:46 am | Permalink
What the hell VR could be at 14mm good for?

is this even english?

By: bigmouth

bigmouth — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:21:57 +0000

he does, but they all seem to be somewhat amateurish.

By: Leo

Leo — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 03:50:01 +0000

I love VR. I’m a shaker. VR can make anything better.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:12:50 +0000

KR has some interesting landscapes.

By: PJS

PJS — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:55:42 +0000

KR sends his Christmas wishes. To one; for one.

By: Zoetmb

Zoetmb — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:20:55 +0000

Actually, Scott (assuming it’s really you), I think you should continue to be just as smart ass as you like when people ask silly questions.

And I’m anxiously awaiting the release of “Hot Shoe Diaries”.

By: Ranger 9

Ranger 9 — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:33:02 +0000

If that’s the real Scott Kelby, then thanks for clearing this up (and for not getting huffy about the abuse farther up the thread.) Happy Holidays to you too!