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

Started Apr 9, 2013 | Discussions
Guidenet
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

jonikon wrote:

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

Have you noticed that just about all professional grade f/2.8 zooms are clearly near $2000?

This mentality you have that they are crazy priced is why Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron just aren't going to be doing much in expensive APS-C crop lenses. The price expectations of most DX shooters limit the market too severely.

That's why you'll continue to see inexpensive kit type zooms and a few inexpensive primes made for DX. The quality, IQ and price expectations are way lower among most DX shooters. Not all, just most.

You see, you think it's not worth the exorbitant $1400. I think that's a bargain for a prograde fast zoom. Look at the 14-24 or 24-70. They aren't really harder to build or much larger. They are more expensive though.

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
Guidenet
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
Re: Canon have a 17-55 f2.8 dx with is and usm

Bruce kendall wrote:

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

Bruce, I agree with you. People spend so much time worrying about some feature like VR and not thinking about this as a superb tool the way it is. So you might want a tripod. You'll probably do better with one anyway.

When you think about VR, when is it useful?

  1. The subject must be static.
  2. The shutter speed must be slow and without recourse. Light is challenging and you have no way to increase shutter speed to compensate.
  3. You don't have a better support system with you.

Most of the tme, you have better solutions available or you have subject motion where VR doesn't help.

Just a thought.

-- 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
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,748
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

Guidenet wrote:

You see, you think it's not worth the exorbitant $1400. I think that's a bargain for a prograde fast zoom. Look at the 14-24 or 24-70. They aren't really harder to build or much larger. They are more expensive though.

This is why they never made a 50-150 f2.8 DX zoom. People say they want them but only if they are $600 or less.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7 +19 more
Stacey_K
Stacey_K Veteran Member • Posts: 8,748
Re: How about just a 16-70mm f/2.8-4 VR?

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

Because people would expect it to be $500 because it's a VA lens and clearly not a "pro" model.

-- hide signature --

Stacey

 Stacey_K's gear list:Stacey_K's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Sony a7 +19 more
ebsilon Contributing Member • Posts: 628
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

Guidenet wrote:

jonikon wrote:

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

Have you noticed that just about all professional grade f/2.8 zooms are clearly near $2000?

This mentality you have that they are crazy priced is why Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron just aren't going to be doing much in expensive APS-C crop lenses. The price expectations of most DX shooters limit the market too severely.

That's why you'll continue to see inexpensive kit type zooms and a few inexpensive primes made for DX. The quality, IQ and price expectations are way lower among most DX shooters. Not all, just most.

You see, you think it's not worth the exorbitant $1400. I think that's a bargain for a prograde fast zoom. Look at the 14-24 or 24-70. They aren't really harder to build or much larger. They are more expensive though.

Take care.

I think no one should expect more pro grade zooms for DX, but by a reasonable lowering of the build quality (to 16-85 standard rather than 18-55) such a lens could possibly  be offered at a  price closer to 1000$ which might find a market also among DX users, especially now when the D7100 is hitting the market. There is after all a quite huge price gap that can be filled between the 500/700$ Tamron/Sigma versions and the 1400$ Nikon.

-- hide signature --

------- Eirik ----------
Visit my gallery at http://eirikbs.smugmug.com/

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,624
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever? Is VR needed below 300mm?

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 a thought, is VR really needed, aside form REALLY long past say, from and past 300mm???

I understand, each of us has different needs, but, I personally don't see the need for VR.

-- hide signature --

Enjoy.....believe in yourself..

Guidenet
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

ebsilon wrote:

Guidenet wrote:

jonikon wrote:

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

Have you noticed that just about all professional grade f/2.8 zooms are clearly near $2000?

This mentality you have that they are crazy priced is why Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron just aren't going to be doing much in expensive APS-C crop lenses. The price expectations of most DX shooters limit the market too severely.

That's why you'll continue to see inexpensive kit type zooms and a few inexpensive primes made for DX. The quality, IQ and price expectations are way lower among most DX shooters. Not all, just most.

You see, you think it's not worth the exorbitant $1400. I think that's a bargain for a prograde fast zoom. Look at the 14-24 or 24-70. They aren't really harder to build or much larger. They are more expensive though.

Take care.

I think no one should expect more pro grade zooms for DX, but by a reasonable lowering of the build quality (to 16-85 standard rather than 18-55) such a lens could possibly  be offered at a  price closer to 1000$ which might find a market also among DX users, especially now when the D7100 is hitting the market. There is after all a quite huge price gap that can be filled between the 500/700$ Tamron/Sigma versions and the 1400$ Nikon.

I think you're completely right. In fact, they could easily come in at the same price at Sigma and Tamron, but it would do two things, I think. One, it would eat into the current sales of the existing 17-55 f/2.8 and the 16-85 DX. Secondly, Eirik, I think it would set false expectations about the possibility of a D400 in the future, which I doubt. I could be wrong, but I think the future is FX all the way. I really believe it would have to be as inexpensive as the current 3rd party makers to generate new sales. You'd have to take their sales.

I think the key to this is a pro-grade level DX camera from Nikon. If a D400 is not forthcoming, I believe Nikon will not create much in the way of upgraded glass in DX. The interesting thing is, I'm wondering if I'd be a buyer of a D400. I've always said no, but that field of view is interesting as a high speed sports model or a poor man's D4. I'm just not sure there's a whole lot of market for a camera in the exact same price point as the D600 FX. I'd buy a D400 maybe, just for the build, frame rates and control layout to match my other gear. I just don't think there are many like me. I think most would opt for a full frame D600. So would I if I didn't already have a D800, D3S and a D700. This would just be a ungrade for my fairly unused D300. It would really have to be something special.

Take care, my friend.

-- 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
Nepentanova Forum Member • Posts: 68
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever? Is VR needed below 300mm?

Bajerunner wrote:

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 a thought, is VR really needed, aside form REALLY long past say, from and past 300mm???

I understand, each of us has different needs, but, I personally don't see the need for VR.

For hand held, non action photography it is great.

A 5 stop vr system (if marketing is to be believed...) means you can choose 5 stops better ISO. ISO 200 instead of 6400 is not to be sniffed at! Even playing it safe with 2 or 3 stops is a significant improvement.

afoton
afoton Senior Member • Posts: 1,500
Re: Canon have a 17-55 f2.8 dx with is and usm

Guidenet wrote:

When you think about VR, when is it useful?

  1. The subject must be static.
  2. The shutter speed must be slow and without recourse. Light is challenging and you have no way to increase shutter speed to compensate.
  3. You don't have a better support system with you.

I have been in such situation once¹. Then I was on a moving boat, shooting aurora. I had a tripod with me, but it was of no help as the ground was moving. I haven't used the 17-55mm much, but actually it was this lens I had in hand this time.

But for me it is FX next time this eventually will happen, so I will never buy a DX vide angle anymore. But a wide angle with VR can be useful still.

¹Actually five nights in a row.

jtan163 Senior Member • Posts: 2,265
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

starman1969 wrote:

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.

I reckon Tamron and Sigma appear to disagree with you.

 jtan163's gear list:jtan163's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon D4 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR +7 more
jtan163 Senior Member • Posts: 2,265
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

Guidenet wrote:

ebsilon wrote:

Guidenet wrote:

jonikon wrote:

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

Have you noticed that just about all professional grade f/2.8 zooms are clearly near $2000?

This mentality you have that they are crazy priced is why Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron just aren't going to be doing much in expensive APS-C crop lenses. The price expectations of most DX shooters limit the market too severely.

That's why you'll continue to see inexpensive kit type zooms and a few inexpensive primes made for DX. The quality, IQ and price expectations are way lower among most DX shooters. Not all, just most.

You see, you think it's not worth the exorbitant $1400. I think that's a bargain for a prograde fast zoom. Look at the 14-24 or 24-70. They aren't really harder to build or much larger. They are more expensive though.

Take care.

I think no one should expect more pro grade zooms for DX, but by a reasonable lowering of the build quality (to 16-85 standard rather than 18-55) such a lens could possibly  be offered at a  price closer to 1000$ which might find a market also among DX users, especially now when the D7100 is hitting the market. There is after all a quite huge price gap that can be filled between the 500/700$ Tamron/Sigma versions and the 1400$ Nikon.

I think you're completely right. In fact, they could easily come in at the same price at Sigma and Tamron, but it would do two things, I think. One, it would eat into the current sales of the existing 17-55 f/2.8 and the 16-85 DX. Secondly, Eirik, I think it would set false expectations about the possibility of a D400 in the future, which I doubt. I could be wrong, but I think the future is FX all the way. I really believe it would have to be as inexpensive as the current 3rd party makers to generate new sales. You'd have to take their sales.

You may be right in that it would eat into the 16-85 and the 17-55 2.8, but then again it might also bring back customers who are now going to Tamron or Sigma..

 jtan163's gear list:jtan163's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon D4 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR +7 more
Ray Ritchie Veteran Member • Posts: 4,059
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?

I haven't checked the dates, but I think I've had my 17-55 since about 2006, so the design is at least 7 years old. At that time, VR was much less common than it is now, and probably wasn't considered to be worth the expense for a normal zoom.

I doubt we'll see an updated version of this lens unless Nikon eventually brings out the D400. The primary market for such a lens would be professionals, and most of them seem to have moved to FX, except for such applications as wildlife shooting (which is obviously not the strength of a 17-55).

Some folks still seem to think a D400 is coming later this year - so check back then.

Ray
My blog: http://www.rritchie.com/wordpress

 Ray Ritchie's gear list:Ray Ritchie's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art +2 more
ebsilon Contributing Member • Posts: 628
Re: Will Nikon add VR to the 17-55 2.8 dx ever?

Guidenet wrote:

ebsilon wrote:

Guidenet wrote:

Have you noticed that just about all professional grade f/2.8 zooms are clearly near $2000?

This mentality you have that they are crazy priced is why Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron just aren't going to be doing much in expensive APS-C crop lenses. The price expectations of most DX shooters limit the market too severely.

That's why you'll continue to see inexpensive kit type zooms and a few inexpensive primes made for DX. The quality, IQ and price expectations are way lower among most DX shooters. Not all, just most.

You see, you think it's not worth the exorbitant $1400. I think that's a bargain for a prograde fast zoom. Look at the 14-24 or 24-70. They aren't really harder to build or much larger. They are more expensive though.

Take care.

I think no one should expect more pro grade zooms for DX, but by a reasonable lowering of the build quality (to 16-85 standard rather than 18-55) such a lens could possibly  be offered at a  price closer to 1000$ which might find a market also among DX users, especially now when the D7100 is hitting the market. There is after all a quite huge price gap that can be filled between the 500/700$ Tamron/Sigma versions and the 1400$ Nikon.

I think you're completely right. In fact, they could easily come in at the same price at Sigma and Tamron, but it would do two things, I think. One, it would eat into the current sales of the existing 17-55 f/2.8 and the 16-85 DX. Secondly, Eirik, I think it would set false expectations about the possibility of a D400 in the future, which I doubt. I could be wrong, but I think the future is FX all the way. I really believe it would have to be as inexpensive as the current 3rd party makers to generate new sales. You'd have to take their sales.

I think the key to this is a pro-grade level DX camera from Nikon. If a D400 is not forthcoming, I believe Nikon will not create much in the way of upgraded glass in DX. The interesting thing is, I'm wondering if I'd be a buyer of a D400. I've always said no, but that field of view is interesting as a high speed sports model or a poor man's D4. I'm just not sure there's a whole lot of market for a camera in the exact same price point as the D600 FX. I'd buy a D400 maybe, just for the build, frame rates and control layout to match my other gear. I just don't think there are many like me. I think most would opt for a full frame D600. So would I if I didn't already have a D800, D3S and a D700. This would just be a ungrade for my fairly unused D300. It would really have to be something special.

Take care, my friend.

But I think your underplaying one important quantity here, and that's the sheer number of existing DX users compared to FX which I think is maybe 90%. While it's true that a quite large percentage of those may not buy any additional lenses save for maybe a 55-200mm or something, the number of DX users that actually buys additional quality glass should still be large compared to the number of FX users (who all have would have a collection of lenses). Nikon needs to keep also these existing customers happy (like e.g. me) to keep them in the Nikon fold and maintain sales volume, and therefore should no just abandon the DX DSLR system from one year to another. Because of this, although I agree that the DX DSLR will be obsolete eventually, I think Nikon will do this very gradually. I also think we'll see the D400 this year, but it will be the last of its kind - and if Canon releases a 7DII, its a certain. My guess is that we'll see something like a mirrorless dX Nikon 2 system at the lower end within the next year, which will gradually replace DX DLSRs while FX DSLRs will stay around for a long time still. To me as a DX owner that poses a bit of a dilemma in terms of lens purchases (haven't got rid of the NAS..). Do I purchase DX lenses now if I expect to have to make a choice between mirrorless or FX at one point? My conclusion so far is to buy whatever I need now, don't worry about my status of my gear and its value in five years time and be happy taking photos!

-- hide signature --

------- Eirik ----------
Visit my gallery at http://eirikbs.smugmug.com/

mistermejia Veteran Member • Posts: 3,340
Is this the reason why you are not buying it?

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 wondering, did you buy it or is the lack of VR preventing you from buying it?  I don't think this lens or focal range needs VR.  Sure, it would be nice if it had it, but the lens is top notch and amazing!  I just bought it this past weekend, i am speechless at the type of built quality alone, i can't say much more, is a PRO lens.  Now i completely understand why it cost so much.  I bought it for $700 bucks.  This is probably the best investment i have ever done for my DX gear.  Right now i am using it on my Fuji S5 and i am looking into getting a nikon 24MP camera one of these days.  Hope you enjoy the samples bellow taken at my daughter's school field trip at Pasadena Descanso Gardens.

 mistermejia's gear list:mistermejia's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Fujifilm X-E1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) MACRO Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads