Nikon Kits Lens + VR Interested?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ElFenix

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,415
8,356
126
i'm honestly shocked that with the holiday spending season about to get underway that i haven't seen the two new canon cheapo IS lenses stuck in two-lens kits with rebels. i guess if nikon isn't doing it canon won't bother either. its not like people are flocking to pentax, sony, or olympus.

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
Click to expand...
 
soydios

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
Canon and Nikon both have just about identical lenses.

Canon seems to be a lens or two ahead of Nikon in updating them to include IS/VR.
I cannot fathom why the 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S DX and just-shipping 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S do not have VR.
 
S

Sid59

Lifer
Sep 2, 2002
11,879
3
81
Originally posted by: soydios
Canon and Nikon both have just about identical lenses.

Canon seems to be a lens or two ahead of Nikon in updating them to include IS/VR.
I cannot fathom why the 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S DX and just-shipping 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S do not have VR.
Click to expand...

well Nikon does have a "lower end" and "upper end" VR from the readings. I'm not sure what technical limitations when putting VR on the lenses.

I do light skimming on a variety of forums and most people disregard the VR and much rather have the f2.8 ish across a zoom.

the 24-70 f2.8 is roughly 1600 and i can imagine it gets bumped 2K easy with VR 2.8. that's a bit steep for my pockets, but it'd make a great indoor lens.
 
soydios

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
Nikon only recently has full line-ups of VR in the low-end and high-end, with the notable exception of the 24-70mm.

Budget:
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR <-- recently announced
55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR

Superzoom:
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR

Mid-range:
18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S
70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR

High-end is the four kings:
14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S <-- recently announced
24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S <-- recently announced, shipping soon
(or 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S DX)
70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR
200-400mm f/4 AF-S VR

Long superteles just got VR, so now the telephoto primes looks like this:
105mm f/2.8 AF-S VR Micro
200mm f/2 AF-S VR
300mm f/2.8 AF-S VR
400mm f/2.8 & 500mm & 600mm f/4 AF-S VR <-- recently announced, shipping Q1 '08

AF-S + f/2.8 + VR makes for a killer indoor general-purpose or low-light sports lens (see 70-200mm and 300mm f/2.8 AF-S VR). Yes, I can get the same effect as VR by focusing on good handholding technique and breathing, but combine good form with VR/IS and f/2.8, and impossible lighting becomes manageable.
I suppose that Nikon has come down in favor of f/2.8 over VR in the standard zoom range on the basis of cost, which is how it should be. It's just that if cost were no object, f/2.8+VR would be best. Hehe, if size and weight were no object either, f/2 zooms all the way!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom