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

The problem with that is that it doesn't stabilize your viewfinder if the VR is on the sensor and not in the lens. Action photographers and BIF photographers all appreciate a stabilized viewfinder if they aren't shooting from a tripod - it makes it much easier to track something. The only reason I would want sensor shift is so that I would have both options - use with older lenses and can be disabled for use with newer, VR lenses.

Mark

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...

Inferior image quality should only be a consideration if it results in a noticeable difference in the final image (eg: the print). Seriously, just how much more inferior is the 70-200VR to the 80-200 on a DX body? Is it so much that the 80-200 AF-S is preferred by most shooters over the 70-200VR?

larsbc

AllOtherNamesTaken said:

The problem with that is that it doesn't stabilize your viewfinder if
the VR is on the sensor and not in the lens. Action photographers
and BIF photographers all appreciate a stabilized viewfinder if they
aren't shooting from a tripod - it makes it much easier to track
something. The only reason I would want sensor shift is so that I
would have both options - use with older lenses and can be disabled
for use with newer, VR lenses.

Click to expand...

Of course there are limitations to in-body stabilization vs. in-lens, but its key advantage is a big one: stabilization on ALL your lenses. This is particularly important if you want stabilization on a lens for which there is no VR equivalent.

I don't think anyone is arguing that VR isn't better. But better doesn't help if you need to replace all your lenses to get VR or you can't get VR in the lenses that you want.

larsbc

Cost isn't a factor at the level of pricing for these lenses.

... and pros don't need VR, their hands are as steady Mount Rushmore during a typhoon. That's why they're pros.

Harrythephot said:

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.

Click to expand...

Same boat here - I'd kill for an light, small f/4 lineup with VR! The 24-105 was a killer lens, and the 100-400 and 70-200 f/4 were remarkable. I'd buy the Nikon equivalent of these in a heartbeat.

--
John Walker
http://jhwalker.smugmug.com/

Fred Ferkel said:

Fred Ferkel wrote:
... and pros don't need VR, their hands are as steady Mount Rushmore
during a typhoon. That's why they're pros.

Click to expand...

BS. I have been a pro ( on and off ) for 17 years and I still find VR very useful in quite a few situations.

either you're a pro or you're not. there's no "on and off" just like you can't switch between being a man or a woman more than once.

larsbc said:

Inferior image quality should only be a consideration if it results
in a noticeable difference in the final image (eg: the print).
Seriously, just how much more inferior is the 70-200VR to the 80-200
on a DX body? Is it so much that the 80-200 AF-S is preferred by
most shooters over the 70-200VR?

Click to expand...

I haven't personally used the 80-200 AF-S, but only the 70-200 and the 80-200 AF-D (two-ring).

It is difficult to know for sure, which of the performance differences are due to the addition of VR (we do know that it has more elements and flares easily) and which are due to optimization for DX.

Magazine reviews that I've seen suggest that the 80-200 AF-S is significantly superior to the 70-200mm at f/2.8 at 200mm. Also let's take a look at what has been said (by an online reviewer) about performance on the D3:

http://www.pictchallenge-archives.net/TESTNUM/D3_optiques.html

These tests are on the D3 but the difference between the 80-200 and 70-200 AF-S lenses is massive in his ratings.

I don't find his ratings of all lenses to be fair (I have an excellent 135/2 DC which works great on the D3 yet he rates this lens very badly). But overall I think the results have good correspondence with my personal experience.

The Canon 70-200 f/4 IS is known to be a significantly better lens than its non-IS f/4 predecessor. But it's almost twice as expensive. The AF-S VR supertelephotos are also known to be excellent. So in telephotos there is no guarantee of image quality loss, as long as there is substantial redesign of the lens. But we don't have much data about how top quality wide angles are affected by the introduction of VR. What is pretty certain is that the lens would be more expensive and larger, due to the necessary addition of new element groups. Note that in a consumer lens, the addition of VR may introduce fewer optical problems since the level of optical quality that must be maintained is not as high - and because the users often just don't care. In a pro lens, things are different.

As a D3 user, I find I have zero interest in VR. High ISO allows me to do what VR would do, except that I can also stop subject movement in almost no light while maintaining high quality. I've found that the use of VR leads to a slight softening even in consumer glass. I get crisper pictures with the 70-300 when I use a very high shutter speed (1/1600s) or a tripod than I do with VR and a more moderate speed. It just seems like a substandard quality convenience thingie which those who demand the highest quality are better off without.

Notice how VR and IF increased the size of the 105mm AF-S VR Micro Nikkor. Read what Bjorn Rorslett has to say about its performance in the core macro range. (I think it is a very nice lens but it's not comparable with the best macro lenses such as the 100mm Zeiss at high magnifications.) Which is more important, ultimate image quality possible or just getting the shot without having to work for it?

Fred Ferkel said:

either you're a pro or you're not. there's no "on and off" just like
you can't switch between being a man or a woman more than once.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, of course YOU would be an expert in MY choice of career.

I worked as a pro phot up until 2001, went and did a different job involving imagery (and more money) for 4 years and have worked as a pro phot again since then.
Look up the definition of PRO.

Regards VR, I know pros and otherwise who can hand hold at ridiculously slow shutter speeds and I know many PROS who cannot. They get around it in whatever way works for them.

Therefore VR can still be of use.

you only worked as a pro, on and off. That's not the same as being a pro. Just like someone who works at Disneyland, they work as Mickey Mouse but in reality, they are not mice but humans.

Fred Ferkel said:

Fred Ferkel wrote:
you only worked as a pro, on and off. That's not the same as being a
pro. Just like someone who works at Disneyland, they work as Mickey
Mouse but in reality, they are not mice but humans.

Click to expand...

So, I worked as a pro, but thats not the same as being a pro?

Duh!

Definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/professional

Anyway as entertaining as this is. I'm offski.

larsbc said:

Of course there are limitations to in-body stabilization vs. in-lens,
but its key advantage is a big one: stabilization on ALL your lenses.
This is particularly important if you want stabilization on a lens
for which there is no VR equivalent.

I don't think anyone is arguing that VR isn't better. But better
doesn't help if you need to replace all your lenses to get VR or you
can't get VR in the lenses that you want.

Click to expand...

VR works with full-frame bodies also. If a non-VR lens is to be used on a sensor-shift system then the edges may need to be cut off. So it's basically impossible to compose precisely on such a system if it is on a full-frame camera.

So if the manufacturer doesn't plan on ever going full frame, then it makes sense to implement anti-shake in the camera. But it means that if they do go full-frame, they won't have any stabilization (assuming they do not implement stabilization on both crop sensor cameras and lenses for full frame). Which may not be a big issue, but just something to consider.

Nikon and Canon are the makers who use stabilized lenses, and incidentally they're also the only ones currently selling full-frame cameras. I think they've chosen the right track.

Ilkka Nissilä wrote:
[snip]

So, in short, we really don't know the degree to which VR degrades image quality.

[snip]

Ilkka Nissilä said:

magnifications.) Which is more important, ultimate image quality
possible or just getting the shot without having to work for it?

Click to expand...

Yours is a loaded question. I could ask my own question: which is more important, getting the shot or possibly losing it because you didn't have time to setup your gear? If it were about ultimate image quality, then we should be shooting with LF cameras, shouldn't we? What's with all this instant gratification with tiny digital sensors?

There are many other factors that determine the ability or odds of getting an image. And despite the usefulness of tripods, monopods and other types of mounts, they're not always available or feasible to use.

Photography involves all sorts of compromises. You may be able to decide which is the best balance for you, but it may not be for others. I won't debate the fact that your work doesn't require VR. Only you would know that. But for a great many other photographers, VR is a very useful tool.

IMO the important thing is to get the shot at the quality you need. For some, that allows the use of VR. For others, maybe not.

larsbc

Ilkka Nissilä wrote:
[snip]

Ilkka Nissilä said:

VR works with full-frame bodies also. If a non-VR lens is to be used
on a sensor-shift system then the edges may need to be cut off.

Click to expand...

"May" is right. I don't think anyone not involved in the R&D knows for sure. At least no one in these forums. Sony has announced that their full frame DSLR will, in fact, have in-body stabilization.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

So
it's basically impossible to compose precisely on such a system if it
is on a full-frame camera.

Click to expand...

How many photogs really, really care about having a 100% viewfinder? It's a legitimate point but I wonder how much of an impact it will have on buying decisions.

[snip]

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Nikon and Canon are the makers who use stabilized lenses, and
incidentally they're also the only ones currently selling full-frame
cameras. I think they've chosen the right track.

Click to expand...

They're also the only ones who were selling stabilized lenses when film cameras were still significant products in their camera line-up. In other words, they HAD to go with in-lens stabilization back then. The reason they're also the only ones making 135 format sensors is probably because they're the ones who had the cash and the right market for these expensive cameras. It's a pretty huge supposition to see a connection between in-body stabilization and the lack of a 135 format body. I'd wait till after Sony releases its 135 format body before pushing that theory.

larsbc

As far as the 24-70, it's been out of stock for months. I've been trying to get one for a while. Maybe there's an upgrade in the works.

But, I'd use the 24-70 for event coverage and the speed in which I'd use VR is the same speed people would be giving me motion blur, so I wouldn't need it.

VR works period. It's not some marketing ploy like megapixels.

Try it you'll like it. (Thats code for a smiley face guy, thats pretty new too)

DaiG said:

DaiG said:

Why is it on the 16-85 or the 18-55 then?

Click to expand...

Managed to avoid these lenses - good marketing ploy as I far as I can
see to 'catch up' with Canon - if I had wanted image stabilisation I
would have gone with Canon years ago when they'd cornered the market.

Managed without VR in 48 years of photography and don't need / want
it now. If I had it in any of my lenses, I'd try it and may be I'll
change my mind . . . perhaps if I invest in the 70-200 I'll try it
then . . . but it won't be on my checklist of reasons for buying the
lens

Click to expand...

--
Jeffrey P. Kempster
Louisville, KY, U.S.A.
http://www.jeffkempster.com

I do not appreciate being called ignorant.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Jeffrey P. Kempster said:

I would want to shoot landscapes handheld if that's all I could do.
Its much much better than NO PICTURE.

Click to expand...

VR pictures are softer than the same lens on a tripod. I've become
more and more cynical about VR and think apart from the long
telephotos, it's just a gadget to attract ignorant consumers.

A landscape photo is shot from a tripod. That way you can better
stitch pictures (often necessary given the lack of affordable medium
and large format digital cameras), and combine multiple exposures for
HDR. Also, you get to think about your composition and get somewhat
more detail (just because the camera is not moving and because you
get to choose the aperture freely). It's also much easier to get the
horizon exactly level when you operate from a tripod.

Landscapes without tripod is basically sunday snapping.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

I think it is a mistake to not
include VR on these lenses. Why is it on the 16-85 or the 18-55 then?

Click to expand...

I think it would be a mistake to complicate and compromise the
optical design of these very fine optics (the 24-70 especially) by
introducing a frivolous feature which is not in line with the fine
quality of these lenses.

Ilkka Nissilä said:

Try going to a busy place like las vegas and take some pictures. Are
you going to carry around a tripod at disney to get a good shot of
the castle at night?

Click to expand...

Of course one carries a tripod to do still photography at night. Why
would one not?

Click to expand...

--
Jeffrey P. Kempster
Louisville, KY, U.S.A.
http://www.jeffkempster.com

larsbc said:

It's a pretty huge supposition
to see a connection between in-body stabilization and the lack of a
135 format body. I'd wait till after Sony releases its 135 format
body before pushing that theory.

larsbc

Click to expand...

It is not a "theory."

We know that as of now, some lenses designed for 35mm have a hard time producing a clean image at the edges of a full-frame sensor. Moving the sensor up, say by 2 mm, will expose dark and/or soft corners in the bottom corners of the image. How could this not happen, unless the image circle of the lenses is greater than full-frame. Sony may make a camera like that but these will be its weaknesses.

robertfel said:

As far as the 24-70, it's been out of stock for months. I've been
trying to get one for a while. Maybe there's an upgrade in the works.

Click to expand...

The 24-70 has been in and out of stock since it was introduced. My local favorite store has not yet received their first copy, although they have several on order.

The lens is just selling that well. A lens redesign takes several years. This one is not even 1 year old.