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

Started Apr 9, 2013 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Adventsam Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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 Member • Posts: 2,450
Will they make an 50-150 2,8 ever??????

Do they care about DX???

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

Adventsam OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: Will they make an 50-150 2,8 ever??????

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

Nepentanova Forum Member • Posts: 68
Re: Will they make an 50-150 2,8 ever??????

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...

jonikon
jonikon Veteran Member • Posts: 5,877
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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 Coolpix A Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +11 more
JeffryZ Senior Member • Posts: 2,316
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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 --
 JeffryZ's gear list:JeffryZ's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED VR Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX +1 more
JOrmsby Regular Member • Posts: 150
How about just a 16-70mm f/2.8-4 VR?

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 D610 Olympus OM-D E-M10 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR +2 more
stuntmonkey
stuntmonkey Senior Member • Posts: 2,696
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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

bravozulu Contributing Member • Posts: 897
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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
starman1969
starman1969 Senior Member • Posts: 3,758
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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 AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Canon EOS 1000D Nikon D4 +5 more
Adventsam OP Veteran Member • Posts: 4,983
Re: Canon have a 17-55 f2.8 dx with is and usm

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!

Bruce kendall Senior Member • Posts: 1,082
Re: Canon have a 17-55 f2.8 dx with is and usm

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

Gabbro
Gabbro Regular Member • Posts: 497
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?
1

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 D600 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF +12 more
Dodi73
Dodi73 Senior Member • Posts: 1,651
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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 D500 Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 50mm F2 Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/25 +3 more
pdxflint Regular Member • Posts: 105
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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
ebsilon Contributing Member • Posts: 626
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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/

ZAnton Contributing Member • Posts: 589
Get a Tamron

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 Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD
Guidenet
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
Probably not and for good reason

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
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 +31 more
hypercore360 Contributing Member • Posts: 923
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

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
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G +2 more
Guidenet
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
How about just a 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS? It's made by Sigma

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
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 +31 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads