Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

Started Apr 9, 2013 | Discussions
Adventsam
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,983
Like?
Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
Apr 9, 2013

Quite honestly I'm amazed it was never released with it? anyone else know if this is going to happen, is it that big of a deal?

rockjano
Senior MemberPosts: 2,359
Like?
Will they make an 50-150 2,8 ever??????
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 9, 2013

Do they care about DX???

(yes here is the beautiful- fantastic D7100 but no new DX lenses...)

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Adventsam
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,983
Like?
Re: Will they make an 50-150 2,8 ever??????
In reply to rockjano, Apr 9, 2013

Yes, its a funny situation, a great camera and general purpose fast lense and no is/vr in 2013! mind boggling missed opportunity.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nepentanova
Forum MemberPosts: 67
Like?
Re: Will they make an 50-150 2,8 ever??????
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 9, 2013

This is a bugbear of mine also.

Just 4 'quality' dx lenses that i can think of

  • 17-55
  • 10-24 / 12-24
  • 35mm 1.8
  • 10.5 fisheye

A TOTAL of 3 primes?

How many 16/17/18 to somethings?

  • 16-85 vr
  • 17-55
  • 18-55
  • 18-55 vr
  • 18-70
  • 18-105
  • 18-200
  • 18-300

Just wish Nikon took a leaf out of M43 or Fujis books and developed some lenses the photographers want! Some wide primes, a f2.8 set, a f4vr set, a 50-150

Fingers crossed, but not holding my breath...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jonikon
Senior MemberPosts: 4,803Gear list
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 9, 2013

For the price Nikon is asking for the 17-55 f/2.8 it shouldalready have VC, but  based on Nikon's behavior in recent years, it is unlikely  we will ever see an improved 17-55 f/2.8 with VC. I have rented the 17-55 f2.8 and although it is a fine performer, it is not worth the exorbitant $1400 price. That price is just nuts!  

- Jon

 jonikon's gear list:jonikon's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon D5100 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JeffryZ
Senior MemberPosts: 1,954
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 9, 2013

Wider lenses like the 17-55 are pretty easy for most people to hand hold so the cost of adding VR is often not necessary.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JOrmsby
Forum MemberPosts: 61Gear list
Like?
How about just a 16-70mm f/2.8-4 VR?
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 9, 2013

I'd really like one of those to fill in with the new 70-200 f/4. Is that too much to ask? Couldn't agree with you all more.

J

 JOrmsby's gear list:JOrmsby's gear list
Nikon D600 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
stuntmonkey
Senior MemberPosts: 2,626
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 9, 2013

Quite honestly I'm amazed it was never released with it? anyone else know if this is going to happen, is it that big of a deal?

>Quite honestly I'm amazed it was never released with it? anyone else know if this is going to happen, is it that big of a deal?

Not likely, but who knows. Adding VR doesn't seem to be as simple ad installing more circuitry, the optical formula changes well. Remember when everybody thought the 85 f/1.4g would have VR, but (according to Nikon) they left it off to preserve the characteristics that people expected of the old 85mm.

The other reason is the boring one, on traditional dSLR's Canon doesn't have one so Nikon probably won't. That's a silly reason for anything, and not accurate, but the two companies don't actively discourage that sentiment either.

I would say that if Nikon is serious about advancing video capabilities, then VR versions of the DX and FX normal-zoom lenses makes sense. Nothing would jump start sales like a D400 rollout with a 16-50 f/2.8VR, but that looks like wishful thinking so far. Persistent rumours of a 16-85 f/4, that might show up first.
--
http://1000wordpics.blogspot.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bravozulu
Contributing MemberPosts: 897Gear list
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to stuntmonkey, Apr 10, 2013

Man, that 17-55 is sure a big piece of glass. And heavy. I was going to buy it. I'm after the f2.8 aspect. They are selling used for about 65-85% of the new price. That's more than I want to spend.

If no VR version appears within 6 months, I'll buy the Sigma 17-50. I'll get great optics, VR and it weighs less.

 bravozulu's gear list:bravozulu's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
starman1969
Senior MemberPosts: 2,280Gear list
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to bravozulu, Apr 10, 2013

It's not just Nikon. I think you will find that Canon's 24-70 f2.8 USM, like the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 does not have IS/VR.

It is probably not cost effective to add VR to this type of lens, also the kind of customers that buy these lenses are mostly advanced amateurs or professionals who can do perfectly well without it.

-- hide signature --

They are watching us......

 starman1969's gear list:starman1969's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 10-24mm f/3-5-4.5G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Adventsam
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,983
Like?
Re: Canon have a 17-55 f2.8 dx with is and usm
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 10, 2013

Adventsam wrote:

Quite honestly I'm amazed it was never released with it? anyone else know if this is going to happen, is it that big of a deal?

This is what is most annoying!

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bruce kendall
Senior MemberPosts: 1,082
Like?
Re: Canon have a 17-55 f2.8 dx with is and usm
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 10, 2013

Its mind blowing to think people are unable to take good photographs with the available lens's be it DX or FX.

Just my take

Bruce

SA

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Gabbro
Regular MemberPosts: 419Gear list
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 10, 2013

Adventsam wrote:

Quite honestly I'm amazed it was never released with it? anyone else know if this is going to happen, is it that big of a deal?

The 17-55 F2.8 is big and heavy enough as it's, add VR will add more weight and bulk. Well, maybe it will balance out with light wallet of yours:~). No thanks, it is great as it's, no room for improvement.

 Gabbro's gear list:Gabbro's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D7000 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Dodi73
Senior MemberPosts: 1,394Gear list
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 10, 2013

As far as I know, Nikon patented a FX 16-35 f/2.8 VR lens. If you can live with that, I'm sure it will have top notch performances, as at the time the old 17-35 outperformed the 17-55 (which had btw a better focal length range btw)

-- hide signature --

All the best from northern Italy, Dino.
I'm on the NIK side of photography.

 Dodi73's gear list:Dodi73's gear list
Nikon D600 Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/18 Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
pdxflint
Forum MemberPosts: 77Gear list
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 11, 2013

Honestly doesn't need it. I've used this (17-55) lens for over four years. It's a tool, it does it's job well, and Nikon likely won't be making pro lenses in DX in the future anyway, from the looks of it. I think too many people are becoming dependent on VR, but with good technique on a wide-normal lens it isn't necessary and would add to the complexity of the lens and require a complete redesign, perhaps losing something in the IQ quality along the way. I love this lens, as is, for many different reasons, but for more casual use, the kit lens (18-55) with VR might be more up some people's alley. It's cheap (about 7 times cheaper,) sharp, very lightweight, and can produce some very decent images if you can live with the compromises vs. the savings. If Nikon did update the 17-55 f/2.8 with nano coatings and VR, it would probably be closer to $2 grand. Then ask yourself how many people today will spend that kind of coin for a lens, regardless of how good it was, if it's limited to DX bodies? And if they made it FX, would 17-55 even be realistic (even more expensive) when there is a 17-35 f/2.8, a 16-35 f/4, a 14-24 f/2.8, not to mention a 24-70 f/2.8 already in the lineup?

 pdxflint's gear list:pdxflint's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 (IF) DX +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ebsilon
Contributing MemberPosts: 555
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to pdxflint, Apr 11, 2013

pdxflint wrote:

Honestly doesn't need it. I've used this (17-55) lens for over four years. It's a tool, it does it's job well, and Nikon likely won't be making pro lenses in DX in the future anyway, from the looks of it. I think too many people are becoming dependent on VR, but with good technique on a wide-normal lens it isn't necessary and would add to the complexity of the lens and require a complete redesign, perhaps losing something in the IQ quality along the way. I love this lens, as is, for many different reasons, but for more casual use, the kit lens (18-55) with VR might be more up some people's alley. It's cheap (about 7 times cheaper,) sharp, very lightweight, and can produce some very decent images if you can live with the compromises vs. the savings. If Nikon did update the 17-55 f/2.8 with nano coatings and VR, it would probably be closer to $2 grand. Then ask yourself how many people today will spend that kind of coin for a lens, regardless of how good it was, if it's limited to DX bodies? And if they made it FX, would 17-55 even be realistic (even more expensive) when there is a 17-35 f/2.8, a 16-35 f/4, a 14-24 f/2.8, not to mention a 24-70 f/2.8 already in the lineup?

Guess you're right that pro grade DX lenses are no more in Nikon future plans. To me that makes perfectly sense.  A 16-50mm f/2.8 DX VR with middle grade build quality (similar to the 16-85mm) and therefore at a lower price point would make a lot of sense for the DX market. If we compare to the price and specs of Canon's equivalent offering, as well as those from third party makers, I guess much of the inflated cost of the Nikon 17-55mm can be attributed to the pro-grade build, which is not required by 90%% of the DX market. But if they will make one is another story - rumors are saying a refreshed 16-80mm f/4 to appear this year, and I strongly suspect Nikon to think that will suffice for the DX users.

-- hide signature --

------- Eirik ----------
Visit my gallery at http://eirikbs.smugmug.com/

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ZAnton
Contributing MemberPosts: 571Gear list
Like?
Get a Tamron
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 11, 2013

Adventsam wrote:

Quite honestly I'm amazed it was never released with it? anyone else know if this is going to happen, is it that big of a deal?

Just get a Tamron either an used one (nonVS), or a new one with VC.

I don't think Nikon is better than Tamron in this league.

 ZAnton's gear list:ZAnton's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,436Gear list
Like?
Probably not and for good reason
In reply to Nepentanova, Apr 11, 2013

Why bother. Much of the time, there isn't much advantage in size for a DX over FX. For example, the 17-55 f/2.8. Moreover, it's a pro-grade lens and pros rarely shoot DX anymore. Most pro-level lenses don't have VR either in the wider lenses.

How many $1800 17-55 f/2.8 VR lenses would be sold to DX buyers? A few to DPReview members maybe, but how about the rank and file amateurs that bought their camera at Best Buy? Most buyers who consider lenses that cost over $1000 have moved to FX anyway. Those that haven't are thinking about it. Many would rather protect their investment with an FX lens, even if they aren't considering a move in short order.

Add all this to the idea that Nikon will probably offer a sub $1200 FX camera in around two years. You can already buy a D600 for $1599 refirb and they sold for around $1500 new during the past holidays if you consider the lens and rebate. $2100 with free 24-85VR. Take off $600 for the lens and there you go. What's the D7100 sell for right now? The price of moving to a better FX camera is just getting cheaper and cheaper. It's no wonder Nikon hasn't been forthcoming with DX lenses lately. Why should they?

When the entry level FX cameras start to hit, the people who said it was impossible will vanish and others will cry Nikon suckered them into DX lenses when they knew less expensive FX bodies were soon to be. I remember when this group were here on the forums saying that FX would not fall below $5000, then $2500 and now they are saying never to entry level. They quote the same old story about the sensor costing too much, which is fast becoming no longer the case.

Even the third party Sigma, Tamron and Tokina companies know what's happening. They are gearing up with more high quality FX lenses rather than more DX crop lenses. Why do you think that is? They usually try to fill vacumes left by the camera makers. If they felt there was a lot of money to be made in releasing crop lenses for the D7100, they would do so. They may still will, but I doubt many. They also see the writing on the wall.

Anyone who can't see that DX lenses are being avoided by Nikon, Canon and the 3rd party makers has their head lodged in the sand. Anyone who can't see what this means, is really deep in that same sand with their eyes closed. Doesn't that make sense? So, probably no Nikon 50-150 f/2.8 VR. Get the 70-200 f/4 instead or the 80-200 f/2.8. They are better investments. Anyone considering a D7100 ought to also consider a D600 if they can stretch the budget a little as well.

Take care.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
hypercore360
Contributing MemberPosts: 859Gear list
Like?
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
In reply to Adventsam, Apr 11, 2013

Adventsam wrote:

Quite honestly I'm amazed it was never released with it? anyone else know if this is going to happen, is it that big of a deal?

NO

 hypercore360's gear list:hypercore360's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D90 Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,436Gear list
Like?
How about just a 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS? It's made by Sigma
In reply to JOrmsby, Apr 11, 2013

JOrmsby wrote:

I'd really like one of those to fill in with the new 70-200 f/4. Is that too much to ask? Couldn't agree with you all more.

J

Sigma has a 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS that's pretty good. There you are. Pretty much what you asked for and it's inexpensive in the bargain.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads