Why no VR on the Nikon 17-55mm and 24-70mm?

Ilkka Nissilä said:

AllOtherNamesTaken said:

I was recently on holidays in Hawaii and at Pearl Harbor, in the
mesuems, there were WAY too many people to be carrying around a
tripod/monopod. It was extremely crowded. All I was thinking about
was how much I would have loved to have VR so I didn't have to shoot
at ISO 1600 - 3200 and use F2.8 all the time. There are certainly
situations where VR makes all the difference, even on the shorter
focal lengths in my opinion - you can't always have a tripod or be in
good light.

Click to expand...

As usual, there are multiple options here:

1) use one of the VR lenses available. E.g. the 16-85mm or the 18-55.

2) ask the museum when you should enter so that there are likely to
be few people. This would probably improve the pictures also.

3) ask the museum if there is a time where you could use a tripod for
specific shots that you want to do with the best quality. Things can
often be negotiated as long as you're flexible with the timing.

4) purchase books / photography from the museum store.

Click to expand...

I certainly see your point, but I would still just like to have a pro wide angle zoom with VR rather than two different lenses. I would rather pay a premium on the pro lens equal to that of a consumer lens with vr to have vr on the pro lens. Also I have reasonably shaky hands so if I could combine VR with something faster than f5.6, I think that would be advantageous. I agree that in most cases up to about 70mm VR is unnecessary my point was just that there are indeed some situations where it would be useful. If I was satisfied by simply buying pictures from the museum gift shop, I could buy pictures of everything I like to take pictures of that would probably be better than my photographs and save myself a lot of time and money, but where is the fun in that? =). I was rushed for time trying to see everything I could on holidays, so negotiating a time when there weren't a million tourists in Pearl Harbor would be very difficult, and not convenient for me. That place is packed every single day, open to close. All I'm saying is that in my specific situation, a 17-55 2.8 VR would have solved all of my problems and spared me any inconvenience or hassle. Again, I agree it isn't necessary for 90% of shots but I sure think a lot of people would go nuts over a 17-55 or 24-70 2.8 with VR - I know I'd pay more for one. If there were an updated 17-55 f2.8 DX VR for $1500 right now I would snap one up in a heartbeat.

Cheers,

Mark

AllOtherNamesTaken said:

Again, I agree it isn't
necessary for 90% of shots but I sure think a lot of people would go
nuts over a 17-55 or 24-70 2.8 with VR - I know I'd pay more for one.
If there were an updated 17-55 f2.8 DX VR for $1500 right now I would
snap one up in a heartbeat.

Click to expand...

I would recommend the 17-55/2.8 IS EF-S Canon to you. It is a very good lens and has IS with f/2.8 max aperture. The lens + a 10MP body fits close to within your $1500 budget. Alternatively you could buy a Sony or Pentax body with in-body vibration reduction and some lenses for these kinds of situations.

No single brand offers everything for everybody.

sean000 said:

As an aside, I noticed Thom Hogan thinks these mid-range zooms should
have VR:
http://www.bythom.com/nikonlens.htm

Click to expand...

Wow I actually disagree with Thom on something!

I'm glad the 24-70G doesn't have VR. Its big, heavy and expensive enough as it is!

--
Cheers,
Joe

I think this is going to far LOL. I have no intention of ever switching systems, and I managed to work with what I had. All I'm saying is that I'd like Nikon to make a stabilized 17-55 2.8 or similar, if not, it's not the end of the world. I think there are a lot of people that want what I do. I don't use that range nearly enough to even consider for 1 second switching systems.

Mark

AllOtherNamesTaken said:

I think there are a lot of people that want what I do.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Nikon will do whatever they believe will sell; as suggested above, there may be technical reasons why the 24-70 hasn't got VR but ultimately they will be looking at the commercial bottom line. At the moment there is a long queue for the non-VR 24-70!

Not when it's a $60 difference - which it is on the 18-55 af=s dx consumer lenses. It's going to be hard to sell $400 or more price differences for vr/is in the future. Especially when one of the sales points for the competition is "You don't have to spend a lot on each lens to get AS!"

Is $60 the price difference or the cost difference? Is it the 'printer' which will lead to many 'ink' sales?

((NT))

DaiG said:

DaiG said:

I think there are a lot of people that want what I do.

Click to expand...

I'm sure Nikon will do whatever they believe will sell; as suggested
above, there may be technical reasons why the 24-70 hasn't got VR but
ultimately they will be looking at the commercial bottom line. At the
moment there is a long queue for the non-VR 24-70!

Click to expand...

Nikon knows that any added feature will help sell a lens, so I agree that there must be a technical trade-off. I think they also know that VR is not a critical feature for the professional mid-range zoom target market... which is why there is a long queue for the 24-70 even though it lacks VR. Event photographers and photo-journalists are big target markets for these lenses, and VR isn't really that useful in those applications. In fact it can get in the way since you might miss a shot waiting that split-second for VR to settle. But if it wouldn't hurt to have it there, I'm sure most people would be happy to have VR. They just wouldn't enable it for times when instant response time is needed.

I know that when I use my 17-55 for events (especially taking candid photos) I appreciate how quick and responsive it is even in low light. Autofocus locks quickly and accurately, and I can fire off the shot immediately. That's what a fast mid-range zoom should do. VR is a tool I enjoy for some types of photos... mostly general snapshots when I don't want to lug my tripod. For those situations I'd rather carry a lighter lens like the 18-200mm VR and a small prime.

Still...I wouldn't mind having VR as an option. VR may not be the best tool in the box, but in the right situation it can be very useful. One situation that comes to mind is shooting from a boat. If you're on a boat VR is a great thing to have.

Sean

I'm no expert, but is VR more expensive to make on faster lenes?

VR in the 24-70 and Nikon takes my money, seems like a much better way to go.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

AllOtherNamesTaken said:

I was recently on holidays in Hawaii and at Pearl Harbor, in the
mesuems, there were WAY too many people to be carrying around a
tripod/monopod. It was extremely crowded. All I was thinking about
was how much I would have loved to have VR so I didn't have to shoot
at ISO 1600 - 3200 and use F2.8 all the time. There are certainly
situations where VR makes all the difference, even on the shorter
focal lengths in my opinion - you can't always have a tripod or be in
good light.

Click to expand...

As usual, there are multiple options here:

1) use one of the VR lenses available. E.g. the 16-85mm or the 18-55.

2) ask the museum when you should enter so that there are likely to
be few people. This would probably improve the pictures also.

3) ask the museum if there is a time where you could use a tripod for
specific shots that you want to do with the best quality. Things can
often be negotiated as long as you're flexible with the timing.

4) purchase books / photography from the museum store.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/ray645

nikon wanted these lenses to be the best they could. So they had to make a choice. Add VR which is really not needed at these focal lengths and get slightly less resolution due to the moving elements, or leave it out and have the best.

Also adding VR also slightly reduces the reliability of the lens.

--
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need

Hi, with 17-55mm range you can handheld until 1/30 safe, so you won't need vr. Vr will give you 3 stops slower so you can shot 1/10 without camera shake, BUT you'll get movement shake with that speed. So Nikon doesn't need to add VR to 17-55 lens cause people don't need it. For lanscape or interior shoot people must use tripod, so VR is once again needless. Different case with lens higher than 85mm, I do need VR in 85mm lens so I can shoot bride and groom in available light indoor with 1/30 sec. So far I must cranked up the ISO to get proper shot with 85mm 1/80sec.

regards.

barking frog said:

Why does Nikon have four consumer-level zooms (the 18-200mm, 16-85mm,
18-55mm, 24-120mm) with VR but not on their most expensive
professional lenses? I can't imagine weight/size being an issue given
that it would be for the pro market; i.e., people used to such
equipment. Cost isn't a factor either. So what is it?

Click to expand...

Because at those focal lengths it's not necessary. Those are pro lenses and if you really need VR then you use a tripod.

Just to keep this argument going.
I have just moved from a Canon 5D to a D3.

I had (amongst others) the 24-105 IS and 70-200 IS lenses and have to say that they proved to be invaluable.

I found them to be among the sharpest lenses I have ever used and it does dismay me that Nikon do not have either affordable f4 pro zooms or a selection of pro VR glass.

Shooting weddings, I found the stabilisation to be a real advantage in getting shots I would otherwise have missed because of poor light levels or a fast changing environment. Photographing in dark churches, with no space for a tripod and no flash, any advantage helps.

The stabilisation in the Canon lenses may be applied in a different manner (I dont know?) but I saw no evidence of image degradation at all, just huge advantages for me and therefore my clients in getting sharp images, frequently against the odds. I would happily hand hold my 24-105 at 1/15th or 1/30th wide open.

Nikon has cheap consumer glass and expensive pro glass but it is completely missing the middle ground with any affordable, constant aperture FF lenses for pro use.

We cant all afford 1.4 primes, or always have the time to change lenses between shots, so for practical use VR telephoto lenses get my vote.

Raymond Bradlau said:

VR in the 24-70 and Nikon takes my money, seems like a much better
way to go.

Click to expand...

Well it is not an option since there is no such lens (and the 24-70 was just introduced last year, not likely to be revised in at least 5 years).

In any case would you really buy such a lens which would be maybe 1 inch longer, 200grams heavier, and cost $300 more, and have inferior image quality. I am glad that you don't run the company.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

In any case would you really buy such a lens which would be maybe 1 inch longer, 200grams heavier, and cost $300 more, and have inferior image quality. I am glad that you don't run the company.

Click to expand...

Got it in one!

A whole other way of looking at this is to ask about sensor shift technology. It exists and works well on other dslr makes. Nikon has the technology to include it in their DSLR lines as well so that VR lenses are no longer necessary.
--
Warren

I forgot I was on DPreview where testing, charts, equations and theory are king and everyone can handhold at 1/20th.

I find I shoot at the long end of my 28-70 often and even if somehow you do know that VR would hurt the IQ a bit I would take a few less lines on an LPM chart and have camera shake lowered substantially.

As far as your "glad you dont own the company" jab, I have no plans to purchase Nikon but my birthday is coming up so who knows

I do think they are a step or 2 behind what they are capable of, and there marketing blows.

and now back to our regularly scheduled Nikon is perfect love fest.....

Ray

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Raymond Bradlau said:

VR in the 24-70 and Nikon takes my money, seems like a much better
way to go.

Click to expand...

Well it is not an option since there is no such lens (and the 24-70
was just introduced last year, not likely to be revised in at least 5
years).

In any case would you really buy such a lens which would be maybe 1
inch longer, 200grams heavier, and cost $300 more, and have inferior
image quality. I am glad that you don't run the company.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/ray645

I will bet they make more money with VR in the lenses instead of on the camera body. Until they are forced to change by competition, I doubt they would include it.