Hands on D-80 w/ 18-135

Started Aug 19, 2006 | Discussions thread
bobmax Veteran Member • Posts: 6,380
Re: I Agree regarding VR....

Hi Mike:

First - this is "NOT" a Nikon VS Canon consideration at all. I'm w/Nikon, love it and have never owned Canon and probably never will.

I am in full agreement with preferring the in-lens vs in-body version of VR/IS. I've owned the KM 7D and 5D so I have personal experience with both approaches and prefer in-lens from a "functional standpoint" - but not a weight or price standpoint :-).

However, I disagree with the approach of Nikon not putting VR in more in the 18-135 lense, and not offering VR technology in the range of both enthusiast and PRO (from a cost/price perspective). This does not inidcate that they should price "below" Canon (God forbid.... ha, ha :-). However:

  • if the new 70-300VR is $700-800, that places it at around $200 more than the Canon 70-300IS (which has gotten exceptional reviews).

  • Canon offers a 17-85 4-5.6 IS for $509; a 17-55 2.8IS for $1149; a 70-300 IS for $549 and a 70-300DO for $1149.

  • If Nikon had put VR in the 18-135 and priced it like the Canon 17-85IS it would have been a really great thing (IMHO); and sill offered the 18-70 at about $320 for a "starter/kit" if people wanted a more economical solution.

As always.... this whole element of "Woulda-shoulda-coulda" is based on personal opinion..... there are not "exacting" answers or directions....

Bob

-- hide signature --

BobNIK

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow