Fuji 16-55 2.8 wr, no ois?

Vic Chapman wrote:

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

Mebyon K wrote:

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

So I do hope that Fujifilm makes a 16-55/2.8 OIS. I do wonder how much bigger/heavier it'll be. Moving large/heavy lens groups will not be without compromising somewhere.

A quick comparison of the size and weight of the Nikon 24-70 non VR and VR versions suggest the following.

18% heavier, 16% longer, 4% wider (diameter) and 82mm instead of 77mm filter size.

That is very good to know. I am not familar with Nikon glass. Is the non-VR version a recent design with awesome optics? And does the VR version perform as well optically?

If the stabilized version meant 18% weight hit, but, no optical compromises, sign me up.

Going only by what I've read (I no longer own Nikon gear) users seem to prefer the performance of the non VR lens. I've no idea if they are the same lens other than VR but I would expect some change in the optical design.

Vic

The DXO Mark verdict is the non-VR is a slightly better lens IQ wise even though it is a older design.  Not to mention it is lighter, larger and as big around as an elephants foot.

VR requires extra components and most are mechanical, mechanical gyros (5 of them) and electromagnets an extra lens that is moved with the magnets which has to be in a housing and all the attachment H/W plus the controller to move to monitor the gyros and control the lens.  VR will add weight, size and cost to a lens.  Oh the price difference between the two - right now is about 400 to 500 bucks.

In internal stabilization all the the five gyros plus the controller are still required. In place of the lens controlled by electro magnets, the sensor has to be mounted on a movable platform whose motion and location driven by a motor that is controlled by the controller. Anyway you cut it - additional weight, size and the potential of performance degradation.