What do you think?
My 18-55 has VR. VR gives me a (consistent) two stop advantage. So the max aperture at 55mm (5.6) is effectively 2.8
My 50mm has a 1.8 max aperture, so that's another stop and a half over the zoom. And it stops subject movement, rather than just camera shake.
Since I got my D90 and can now have AF with all my lovely primes again, I just don't use zooms. However, it's winter and low light, so I'll probably back to using zooms in the summer.
So which is best? VR or fast glass?
Fast glass because living things tend to move even when they look still so shutter speed can be important. Having said that, I like my 70-300mm VR because it's a helluva lot lighter than carting some 300mm f2.8 about!
For me and the things I do It's 2.8 or faster, for the same reason as Sue. Particularly at the tele' end where all movment is magnified.
Of course you can somtimes have both.
Graham. :)
For me it's horses for courses.
I opted for the Canon 70-200 f4 with IS because it is sooo much smaller and lighter to carry around than the 2.8 version. But then it is a multi purpose lens as most zooms are.
I think with primes - you are using them for a specific task, to get a specific type if shot so IS/VR is not so important.
Nikon primes like the 400mm F2.8, 500mm F4 and 600mm F4 all have VR, so I guess it can be useful to have. My 400mm F2.8 AIS doesn't have VR and I miss it at times, because even on a tripod you can get slight movement which VR can correct. ;D
Depends what you need. VR is only good for static subjects or, it you have the option, panning.
And although an f5.6 with VR might be considered a f2.8 - its not, it doesn't have the ability to blur the background in the same way a f2.8 does.
If your subject is moving, then the only way is to have fast glass - or high ISO. Or both.