AND if you guys have not seen the weight of 24-70mm maybe you should. I believe they gave it some thought and felt it wasnt necessary to add extra weight of VR. 900g on the new lens. (not that I am complaining) but I have seen people who by now should understand why these lenses are that heavy.
i'm pretty sure you all appreciate the VR in the 70-200...it does have its advantages as well the added weight & lenght penalty. but getting a sharper photo at low speed is well worth it. just don't quite get it...i mean if you can VR the 18-200, why not the top of the line??? yes, both are pretty hefty & all the more the need to stabilize it. this is just my opinion & not up for arguments.
btw, don't see any provision for mounting a filter on the 14-24...whats up w/ that??? and...upping the iso is not always a good option for me.
>i'm pretty sure you all appreciate the VR in the 70-200...it >does have its advantages as well the added weight & lenght >penalty. >but getting a sharper photo at low speed is well worth it. >just don't quite get it...i mean if you can VR the 18-200, >why not the top of the line??? >yes, both are pretty hefty & all the more the need to >stabilize it. >this is just my opinion & not up for arguments. > >btw, don't see any provision for mounting a filter on the >14-24...whats up w/ that??? >and...upping the iso is not always a good option for me. > >joe
Dont know I notice they didnt specify the filter size for 14-24mm.
I don't need VR in any lens. I learned to make my body into a tripod and breathe and exhale before shooting with 300mm Minolta Rokkor as low as 1/60 sec. (That lens weighs about 5 lbs.) Why is VR so important nowadays?--I think people got used to it on video cameras. In my opinion, we sometimes get too hooked on these technological crutches. Simpler is better!
That does it, as soon as they make a lens I want, they forget to put IS in it. I'm selling my D3 and switching to Canon!
(I'm joking, of course!)
I think the fact that these lenses are being introduced with the D3 and D300 with ISO 6400+ probably led Nikon to think that it wasn't worth the complexity and cost tradeoffs in these lenses. I certainly understand the value of VR at 25mm from the 18-200, but if one can just dial up ISO 6400 at f/2.8, that's the shutter speed equivalent of shooting at f/1.4 ISO 1600, which is pretty darn dark. Nevermind 25600 or whatever astronomical number Hi-2 is on the D3/300.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
I think there may be a few "pro" wedding photographers out there who would welcome VR in a normal zoom. Agreed, it may not be necessary on a D3 or D300 if the noise/contrast/color/etc is acceptable at ISO 800+ but that is yet to be seen. Len, unfortunately my skills won't allow me to reliably hand hold at 70mm ,f2.8 and say 1/30 sec....a not uncommon situation in a dimly lit church that precludes stobes/flash. At ~900g the 24-70 2.8 is no feather either so fatigue could potentially be an issue on a pro body. I would have gladly paid a premium for VR. Cheers Mark
>VR below 70mm makes not much sense, specially in products >aimed at the pro and advanced amateur market segments.
I very much disagree that VR doesn't make sense below 70mm. There is a good-sized segment of the market that does natural light portraiture (especially of children)--not to mention the wedding photographers.
I'd love to see VR in the 24-70 range for just this sort of application. A tripod is cumbersome for these types of shoots and I've often longed for VR in this range. I can normally get decent results at ISO 400 with a 1/60 or 1/90 shutterspeed, but the shots are not as sharp as they could be, and I get a fair number rejects due to camera shake.
I hope Nikon will see the light and add VR to these lenses in the near future, although they certainly have not given any indication that they plan to do so. It's a big mistake in my opinion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Sugar Land (Houston), Texas
>I very much disagree that VR doesn't make sense below 70mm. >There is a good-sized segment of the market that does >natural light portraiture (especially of children)--not to >mention the wedding photographers.
I do portraits of children in low light (and get paid for it) and my experience is that children move too fast for VR to be of much use. I seldom shoot children with a shutter speed of less than 1/100 which most people can hand hold out to 50 or 70mm on an APS size sensor. I often use a monopod as well. The VR is of much more use for weddings when the people are more or less standing still. I would pay extra for VR in the 24-70mm but I will end up buying it even without. I am a little surprised that Nikon didn't put it in - if only for appearances. Doug
>>I very much disagree that VR doesn't make sense below 70mm. >>There is a good-sized segment of the market that does >>natural light portraiture (especially of children)--not to >>mention the wedding photographers. > >I do portraits of children in low light (and get paid for >it) and my experience is that children move too fast for VR >to be of much use. I seldom shoot children with a shutter >speed of less than 1/100 which most people can hand hold out >to 50 or 70mm on an APS size sensor. I often use a monopod >as well. The VR is of much more use for weddings when the >people are more or less standing still. >I would pay extra for VR in the 24-70mm but I will end up >buying it even without. I am a little surprised that Nikon >didn't put it in - if only for appearances. >Doug
I've done a fair amount of this as well (although I don't get paid for it). I find that most of the time I can keep them still enough for 1/60 or so (especially newborns), but at that speed, I still get a fair number of shots that have camera shake problems. I'd pay for a 24-70 with VR in a heartbeat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Sugar Land (Houston), Texas
Personally I would prefer VR on lenses I am likely to want to handhold for candid shots, which are the shorter focal length lenses. The only reason I have an 18-200 VR lens is so that I can do this. The rest of the time I use a tripod and don't need VR on my other lenses. Having said that, I am thinking I might want to get a longer lens with VR for tracking birds in flight.
I too think that this is a prety big omission. Given that f2.8 is not that much faster than the consumer zooms that are usually f3.5 at the wide end and have VR, those lenses will be much more versatile in wide-angle low light situations than their more expensive "pro" counterparts. Going from f2.8 to f3.5 is only one stop right? Yet even conservatively, VR lenses will allow you to take pics 2-3 stops beyond what you normally would be able to get.
Also, people often claim that VR would add unneccesary weight/bulk to a lens. My opinion on that matter, however, is that I really doubt the addition of VR would seriously impact the weight of a lens whose mass is determined largely by the big f2.8 glass and pro-level metal body construction. As VR is mostly an electronic/micromechanical system, its weight should not be that much. It's not like adding VR would double the weight of the lens. Without numbers on what a VR unit really weighs, however, this is just my opinion . I'd really be interested to know what the real weight/size effects would be.
As I am not a pro and will not collect $10,000 in lenses for my first nikon DSLR, I may even consider going to Canon when I upgrade because it seems their lens choices are sometimes more versatile than their Nikon equivalents.
The 600 f/4D has 10 elements in 7 groups. The 600 VR has 15 elements in 12 groups.
The 55-200G has 13 elements in 9 groups. The 55-200VR has 15 elements in 11 groups.
You're comparing lenses with completely different optical configurations. The 300 f/2.8 has been to date the best example of a lens that appears to have been modified almost solely for the addition of VR.
The 300mm VR uses a completely different barrel construction.
Further examples: the new 500mm VR is heavier than its predecessor, and has additional elements. The new 400mm VR is lighter than its predecessor and has additional elements.
All I'm saying, in response to assertions in this thread that "VR won't add much weight" and "VR adds quite a bit of weight" is "who knows". No-one except Nikon's designers can say whether a new VR version of any given existing lens is likely to be heavier or lighter.
We hear lots of folks saying hey, we don't need VR on something as wide as a 24-70, but on the other hand, Canon does have a 17-55 f2.8 IS lens, and I've got a friend (more like a friend of a friend) who has one, and both them absolutely love having the IS available on that lens.
I have a feeling that most of the naysayers who rationalize Nikon's not putting VR on a lens this wide by saying we don't need it anyway, would in fact really love having it on there, if Nikon chose differently.
I guess it will never end. Companies will also be where if there is money to be made.
Buy new camera's every 2yrs,buy lenses every 8 yrs. I guess, convert all lenses to AFS even primes. Add VR on mid and wide angles. Have a new complete set FX lenses than just normal film lenses.
The fan boy thing.... I dunno,does hype and being cool translate to good photo's.
Next will like a GPS builtin the camera. Special Nikon docking printer. Satellite data transfer included for the PJs.
Speaking to a Adobe Ambassador as our guest speaker at our photog club and he was showing CS3 and LR but he showed 1.1 last time when it was not released to the public and a member picked it up and he admitted .. anyway, he talked about cloning tool or dust off tool, and the new thing that they are working on is face recognition technology that is if a dust spot is on the face the computer may auto detect the face, ie .. the eyes and it will clone it for you without making the person having 1 eye or 3 eye.
It never ends. I actually think its good to get some fast primes like 200/2 or 400/2.8 where available and the WA lenses like 1.4 apertures. Not that I use them much but they are available like opera concert shooting without flash.
But you know ... it never ends, the thing we hear is which like most pple I cannot confirm or deny, dSLR is better than film SLR at most parts, modern zooms are better than primes. So what is it .. ends up with. An expensive body and a 3 or 4 zooms from 14mm to 400mm and then pack this 10-15kg into one's backpack. Then 8yrs after replace all thsoe lenses again and after 2yrs replace that body or rather get 2 and replace 2 each time.......
I think its quite good to like get into 4x5 large format .. at least its away from this frenzy and they can be more portable than medium format. Of the amount one takes, how many of those are truly great shots, we these days have so much digital files, do we spend enof time editing them.
The point is what can be available is non ending. Pple may want AFS and VR on every lens, high iso workable .. companies will sell, design where approp where money can be made.
Who's AFS and VR may not be the cream of the cake down the road. Look at what digital cameras have done. Canon has a mid digi lens 2.8 with AFS and VR equiv. Then Nikon puts out a 14-24mm, some will say it wasn't a traditionalist approach.
Scanners now have ICE, we may get auto dust off in softwares or even in camera, face recognition, texture/colors balance off, exposure balance off that actually try to see what you are photographing..
One thing Adobe is working on is face recognition with dust removals so you can dust off (automatically) without cloning out or adding an extra eye, rather than using the manual slow way in Photoshop.
Now, you have, dust off SLRs are available, lens calibration is too, white balance, d-lighting or equiv in the newer camera's.
and why should it end? The big leap from film to digital opened the whole new paradigm of photography allowing the microprocessor and DSP to take over and perform many wonderful things. Would you rather go back to Kodachrome ASA 25 with your single coated 50mm F2.0 lens on a Nikkormat ?
You get a new PC every 2 years, a new car every 5 years, a new cell phone every 18 months, why not a new camera every 2 years?
In the 24th century when they will have invented warp-9 space travel, and the tricorder, and transporter ... Captain Jean Luke Picard is still out in space looking for new knowledge.
It never should end. It's why engineers have jobs, which give them money, which lets them buy houses, which let the home builders hire construction workers, which pay them money, which lets them buy trucks and send their kids through college to become engineers which let them get a job as an engineer which gives them money ....
But comes a time when it makes economic sense. I may be the minor, but I am certainly don't buy a new computer each 2yr, a new cellphone, new camera each 3yr, new set of lenses each 8yrs and a new tripod setup. In terms of photog, a D70 has done great its able to print A3 for club functions.
I still got a P3 600Mhz laptop from 2000, bought from USA eBay and shipped to NZ since it would of costed $3k which I had for $1k. Bro has a computer 1.6 AMD Sempron from his AMD 200Mhz.
It does the job. My cellphone was bought used in 2004 Nokia 6230 I think.
I rather spend carefully than need to live off a government pension at $10k USD a yr equiv and need to rent a place to live as well and then go on the waiting list for any hospital treatment. With all these stuff on the used market its great.
The Canon 24-70 f2.8 does not, and never has had, VR (IS) fitted. I suspect that the 17-55 f2.8 has it because it is an "S" lens and therefore basically aimed at the amateur market where they assume that some will attempt to hand hold at very low shutter speeds.
The standard argument is that you generally don't need VR at 70mm and below because you need 1/100s to stop action, and if you don't need to stop action then you have time to use a tripod.
I know that I've photographed plenty of people at 1/40s (at 35mm or wider anyway) and even lower... candid shots where a tripod or monopod wasn't practical. If I'm lucky I can get a sharp 55mm shot at 1/40s handheld, but I need a faster shutter speed for reliable sharpness.
1/40s is plenty of shutter speed in situations where people are not moving much. Other times a little motion blur can be a nice effect. My workaround? I can either up the ISO on my D200 or I can shoot the shot at 1/40s at 35mm (where I can reliably get a sharp shot at this speed) and then crop to the same angle of view as I would have gotten at 55mm. Neither compromise is ideal. I'd love to have VR in my 17-55... even better on a 24-70.
VR is something I seldome need, but on those occasions where I do need it there is no viable substitute. Yes, the good performance of the newer bodies at high ISO may ameliorate the need to some degree, but that only changes the specific circumstances in which you would use it.
That is, right now there are low-light cases where you would be at a shutter speed of say 1/10 at the highest ISO you can stand, so you don't even attempt the shot. With the newer bodies, you'll be able to dial up the ISO to take the shot at 1/40 or 1/60 -- still a speed where many would find VR useful -- and the shot is worth taking. I think it's erroneous to say that VR is of no use below 70 mm. There always are lower-light cases that could be profitably exploited with VR.
Plus, of course, there are a lot of existing Nikon DSLRs that aren't going to be thrown into the trash any time soon. A 14-70 lens with VR would be mighty nice on my D2X, for example.
But what compromises to the lens would have had to be made to include VR? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else posting here does, either. We can guess, but I'd really like to hear an engineer involved in the design of these lenses discuss the engineering trade-offs that were considered.
Trying to stay out of this discussion, I've enjoyed the variance in positions. But I'll add my two cents just for fun.
To me, VR is both a convenience and a crutch. It's a convenience when we don't either have the time or want to take the time to set up the shot correctly, with the optimal equipment. With long focal lengths and stationary subjects, I've never found VR to be a benefit over a good tripod, even including VR tripod mode on lenses like the 200-400 VR, which I've used and tested extensively. For the focal lengths being discussed from 14mm to 70mm, a benefit is even more unlikely.
So the issue is hand holding. As seems to be the concensus, and is my opinion, VR is worthless with subject motion, even minimal. I'll take wide aperture with fast shutter speed any day over VR. This is particularly true in photographing sports, where you need subject isolation and stopped action (granted blurring motion can have it's limited place). VR doesn't help either of these, and is a real hinderance due to the shutter release action lag time. You can't just mash the shutter button and GO!!! (Lots more to it than that of course! And for telephoto focal lengths and moving objects in nature and wildlife, such as birds overhead, an exception can be the use of VR with a tripod and gimbal mount head, given accurate subject tracking and other critical shooting techniques.)
But if you have a stationary subject, and no support options, it's a decided advantage for low light shooting hand held. This is where the wedding photographer may benefit, for such shots as candle lighting or alter positions, etc., where flash is taboo, and support is impractical. I could have used VR on my 28-70 AFS in these circumstances.
But for the vast majority of photographers, VR is really just a crutch, where they don't have the appropriate equipment with them for the situation or the desire to take the time to set up the shots appropriately. It's easier to rely on the automatic abilities of the camera and/or lens to do it. And I'm guilty of that myself on occasion! But then I'm generally using either a P&S or D70 in Auto or Program mode and passing it around for others to use as well.
Now admit it, we're all getting lazy with all the technology benefits coming down the pike! But for me it's a matter of differentiating between "fun" photography, and "serious" photography. For the latter, I rarely find myself using VR, the exception being for low light telephoto nature and wildlife situations, let alone for short focal length use. Let the contraversy continue!
OldPhotos "If everyone possesses some measure of this intangible quality called creativity, photography is unprecedented as an outlet for its expression." - Ansel Adams
To me VR means that I can use the lowest possible ISO possible provided there is no need to freeze motion. There were plenty of occasions where with my (now sold) 18-200 I found VR very useful doing natural light shots of objects in museums and palaces when I didn't want to go over ISO400 and needed f5.6 or greater depth of field (on D200).
I don't want to have to lug a tripod everywhere, and sometimes you can find more interesting angles on things shooting by hand than having to muck around with a tripod, or simply don't have time to set it up.
I can appreciate that the D300/D3 may make me comfortable using ISO800 or higher due to reduced noise, but I don't own one of these camera's yet, and will be getting two lenses before I upgrade my body again...
... one of which will be the 24-70 f2.8, so it hasn't put me right off it, I'm just a little bit disappointed it isn't there.
i wonder what the nay sayers reactions will be if canon came out with a 16-35 & 24-70 IS? my point is: NIKON would have had the complete edge if the new zooms were VR versions...as it is, it seems illogical & perhaps stupid.
VR is for reducing handshake-camera movement...so yes, it is beneficial regardless of focal lenghts.
Canon are unlikely to bring out a 16-35mm f/2.8 with IS - they have only just released a new version of this lens, and chose not to include IS.
In your original post, you asked for members' views. Going on to call them "nay sayers" just because they disagree with your opinion, and explain why, is impolite and contrary to the spirit of Nikonians. Please let's recognise that there are (and probably always will be) two equally valid points of view on this topic.
i'm cool. BTW, i just pick-up the term from an earlier poster here...
"I have a feeling that most of the naysayers who rationalize Nikon's not putting VR on a lens this wide by saying we don't need it anyway, would in fact really love having it on there, if Nikon chose differently."