Fast lens and/or VR

[MotF Bane]

It seems like very few fast (f/2.8) lenses have VR. Why not have that for when you're using a higher f/ and looking for more depth of field or whatever reason? Does it cost that much to add to an already pricey lens?

 

[whoiswes]

My understanding is that larger apertures = bigger glass = more weight = not as effective VR.

Think about it, if you have a 200 F/2.8, you've got a few inches of high grade glass that you have to be moving very accurately hundreds of times a second...the VR systems currently in use just can't keep up unless you want to spend $$$$ more.

Of course, I could be completely wrong (and probably am, it happens a lot), but the bits and pieces I've read indicate that's the biggest problem and why VR on the faster lenses is not practical.

 

[jpeyton]

Actually quite a few f/2.8 lenses have VR/IS, especially when you get into focal lengths 100mm+. VR/IS is most effective at longer focal lengths, where shake is most pronounced. It's still effective at shorter focal lengths; the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VR are two great examples.

Very few lenses faster than f/2.8 have VR/IS. The 200mm f/2 does.

Or if you have in-body IS, every lens has it.

 

[MotF Bane]

Perhaps I was too general in my OP. Nikon and compatibles, such as the 24-70 f/2.8, or Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8. Is it that expensive or difficult to install?

So what do you do with a fast lens that lacks VR, if you want more depth of field? Tripod/monopod/railing/something?

 

[ProfJohn]

Sigma does not make any fast lens with VR on it.

Tamron does not make a long fast lens with VC on it, yet.

So your only choice is Nikon's uber awesome 70-200 2.8

 

[soydios]

Nikon is notably missing VR on its 17-55mm f/2.8 DX and 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses.
Canon is notably missing IS on its 24-70mm f/2.8 lens.

Beyond that, VR is quite prevalent.