Speculating what Nikon VR zooms will be coming out soon

I really need a VR DX wide zoom because I consistently shoot handheld in

relatively low light, without flash. With my 12-24/4, camera-shake spoils my

results at 1/15th or lower.

 

The trouble is, I really love wideangles, and on the 18-200VR, the widest 18mm

(27mm @ FF) is not wide enough for me. I would be satisfied with a widest 16

mm (24mm @ FF).

 

Also, since I like the wideangles, I can't see myself needing anything longer

than a 70mm (105mm @ FF), so the long 200 is really of no interest to me.

 

I realise this is pure speculation, but what does everyone think of the

chances of Nikon bringing out a wider VR zoom, such as a 16-70 VR. (I have a

D70).

 

I would just hate to spend all the money on the 18-200VR right now, and then

Nikon brings out my dream lens 16-70VR with fast aperture.

p/s I don't want to get the 17-55/2.8 because I specifically am hankering after a VR lens.

If you must have a 17-55mm/f2.8 with VR, get the Canon EF-S version with IS along with a Canon body. Otherwise, IMO speculating on what Nikon will introduce in the future is kind of a waste of time; you will never get any real information from this type of speculation. For example, Canon added IS to its super-teles back in 1999. Now 7 years later, Nikon's 500 and 600mm AF-S still have no VR. In the mean time, quite a few people have switched to Canon for that very reason.

The 70-300, otherwise, who knows?

 

VR is not a big deal on the 17-55 -- it's too wide to matter in most circumstances:<div></div>

Ryan, I mostly take people pictures and portraits. When I do low-light portraits, I find that even the slight camera-shake is revealed in the less-than-crystal focus in the eye highlights of the subject. Do you have that problem, or are you able to hand-hold the 17-55/2.8 very well, even for portraits?

Have to shoot in low light?

Possibly get a camera that has low noise at ISO 1600, 3200 - but I am not sure about the wide angle lens there, e.g. (Fuji F30):

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00H8Ib&unified_p=1

 

Scroll down to see Jeff's pictures, and link to another review down the post in one of responses.

I would love to be able to test drive the minolta version of my tokina 12-24 on the new sony DSLR with anti shake. It just seems to make more sense to move the VR tech out of each lens and into the camera body. Not to mention the Alphas use of a 10.2 mp (d200 variant?) sensor for 7-8 hundred dollars less than a D200 or D30!

 

The estimates are up to 3 stops gained with anti shake tech. Imagine what that means for low light shots even with fast prime lenses. It doesn't even matter now if the Sony sensor has poor high ISO performance cause chances are if you have some fast glass you won't ever need to use it.

 

I hope Nikon and Canon for that matter are paying a lot of attention to the new upstart.

Don't expect a VR zoom wider than 18mm.

 

The only VR zoom I expect to see in the near future is the 70-300 VR G, which was rumoured to have been intended for release at the same time as the 105mm Micro VR (The Aussie Importer even posted pics).

 

If you need VR and wide, I'd get the Pentax K100D with either the current 16-45 DA, 14mm f2.8 DA, 12-24 f4 DA or wait for the fall and get the K10D and the upcoming 16-50 f2.8 DA. Both bodies offer in-camera anti-shake, just like the Sony. And Pentax offers far better wide-angle solutions than Sony is (note the 12-24 Pentax is based off the Tokina design, but testing indicates the Pentax version has less barrel distortion at the wide end, the upcoming Tokina 16-50 f2.8's optical design came from Pentax).

<blockquote><em>"even the slight camera-shake is revealed in the less-than-crystal focus in the eye highlights of the subject"</em></blockquote>

<p>

Are you sure the problem isn't subject motion?

Tom, I confirm that my main problem is hand-shaking. For example, I do portraits where the subject is mostly motionless, looking straight back at me. Hence, the shake is from my hand-holding the camera.

<I>The estimates are up to 3 stops gained with anti shake tech. Imagine what that means

for low light shots even with fast prime lenses. It doesn't even matter now if the Sony

sensor has poor high ISO performance cause chances are if you have some fast glass you

won't ever need to use it.</i><P>

 

Ever since the Minolta in-camera stabilization came out there's been discussion about

whether it's better or worse than in-lens stabilization a la VR or IS. There seems to be

some agreement that for short focal lengths, in-camera stabilization should work fine.

For a long tele where vibration is in effect amplified by the extreme focal length,

the presumption is that an in-lens system, custom-designed for that lens, should work

better than a general-

purpose in-camera stabilization mechanism. However, I've never seen any kind of

objective test of this.<P>

 

Another issue for in-camera stabilization is that it would be difficult to implement for a

full-frame sensor -- Brand C already has those, and many Brand N users seem to want

them.

I might be completely wrong with this but in lens stabalization might be a product of the film era. You can't exactly move film to correct for camera shake but you can move a sensor (even possibly of varying sizes). The digital age has changed things and some companies that were on the fence with both digital and film solutions might have been trying to satisfy both. DSLR manufacturers that have gone fully digital might not have these same issues and can therefore respond with the best application of technology for their more limited scope.

In-camera (body) stabilization needs an image circle considerably larger than the sensor size. I would imagine that limits your lens design and zoom range. I wonder whether it'll lead to vignetting and quality variations depending on which part of the image circle a particular image uses. I am sure when those Sony and Pentax bodies are available, they will be tested thoroughly for those potential issues.

 

And as Mark points out, if you want to use the same scheme for full 24x36 sensors, you'll need much larger lenses and lens mounts to give you a large enough image circle.

I would get either a Minolta (Sony) or Pentax setup with fast primes. The Canon 17-55 is also not wider than 17mm so that may not satisfy you.

I thought we were supposed to not speculate on this board. Shun?

 

Dave

Dave, I have already pointed out that speculation is a waste of time. However, this thread has evoloved into some interesting discussion.

If Nikon were to market a 300mm f/4 AF-S VR for a reasonable price (approx $1400 or so), they would sell like hotcakes. Why they haven't done this (or Sigma produce an OS version) is a puzzle to me. -Greg-

Well, Nikon has a bunch of things they could make that would sell well. 13/2.8 DX, 18/2.8 DX, 24/1.4 DX, 70-200/4 VR AF-S, 55-135/2.8 VR AF-S, etc. 300mm is just too long for most people on DX cameras.

 

On the other hand when they return to full-frame after some years there will be demand for a 300/4 AF-S VR. I just think that even with VR that lens would be too long to easily hand-hold. Maybe I'm wrong.

"300mm is just too long for most people on DX cameras."

 

Nope, I totally disagree with that, and I think the undending multitudes that continuously ask questions about which TC's fit which 300mm f/4's would feel the same. Everybody and their brother is running around with telephoto primes and zooms on their DX cameras, and often looking for MORE reach, not LESS.

 

Currently, (besides the heavy and expensive 200-400mm VR) the only stabilized choice of a long lens for a Nikon body is the 80-400mm which is a fairly poor offering (people go that route becuz that's their only recourse.

 

Check the critique forum for a small sample of amateur bird photographers... there are bunches more of them now that we don't have to crank our way through film. Same goes for anyone on film safari in Africa or any other place to photography birds/wildlife/'you name it'

 

300mm too long? Hardly.

 

Canon is sooo far ahead of Nikon with IS that it is doubtful Nikon will ever catch up. They don't really seem to be trying.

I agree completely with Greg about the usefulness of 300-400 mm stabilized lenses. In

the

Canon world, the 300/4 IS is immensely popular and many people use it routinely with a

1.4X

converter. Hand-holding that lens is routine. Canon makes a nice 'plain' 400/5.6 but

loads of

users wish they'd make a stabilized version. In short, there are many, many people

interested in nature, sports, etc. etc. that want hand-holdable (i.e., stabilized) 300-400

mm

lenses.

 

I agree with Ilkka that lots of people would buy a stabilized high-quality 70-200/4. The

Canon faithful have yearned for that lens for years, to no avail, even though there is a very

nice unstabilized version.

 

Why N doesn't put VR into its big-gun telephotos, and why C doesn't put IS into their

400/5.6, 70-200/4, etc -- despite what seems to be a very substantial demand -- isn't

clear. I guess the subtlties of development and marketing decisions are too inscruitable

for me.

Yes, bird photographers need long lenses, but how many people really photograph birds, out of all photographers? If we look at other fields of photography, how often is one going to pick up a 300/4 e.g. for people photography, architectural photography, landscape photography, on a DX format camera? Not very often. I sometimes use my 70-200/2.8 with a 1.4X TC for head shots because of the VR but the quality of the combination is borderline acceptable. With the 300/4 VR, this would become feasible, but would it be enough to make me carry the longer lens along with other lenses? Sometimes, but not often. I think 200mm is enough for 99.95% of my needs, and I do a broad variety of photography.

 

Considering that Nikon's lens line is in a state of confusion because of no FF DSLR and only a handful of DX lenses, I think the VR superteles are probably number 27. in their list of new lenses to make.

Ilkka, why would you need the 1.4X for headshots? Wouldn't the 200mm end by itself get you close enough in most cases?

<I>Yes, bird photographers need long lenses, but how many people really photograph

birds, out of all photographers?</i><P>

 

Judging from what I routinely see when I'm out photographing, the answer to that question

is: thousands and thousands

-- and don't forget the surfer shooters, sports jocks, etc. etc. In the US alone there are

probably a dozen nature photographers (at least) that lead 'instructional' tours to hotspots

like Florida, Alaska, etc. etc. -- 5-10 people at a time for several days, throughout the

year. Lemme see... if there are just 5 of those folks and at a given time each leads 5

nature wannabes for a week, that's more than 1000 neophyte nature photographers per

year. And essentially all of them purchase big lenses. And that's just a fraction of the

nature shooters out there (most of the people I meet have never taken such a tour).

Shun: given that the Sony system has been in the wild for 2 years (with the Konica Minolta 7D), the essential issues have been tested pretty well. Distortion is only an issue with fisheye's and extremely wide rectilinear lenses. In-body Stabilization is essentially useless with a fisheye lens, but isn't a real issue out to 10mm or so with rectilinear lens on a DX format sensor.

 

Pentax system is more elegant (Pentax uses a floating sensor and electromagnets to Sony's more brute force stepping motor-based approach). The Pentax system also can theoretically compensate for slight camera rotations, but the upcoming bodies likely won't implement it.

Adam, when you use FF lenses on DX-type DSLR bodies, you are not going to expose potential problems with in-body stabilization. AFAIK, Minolta has only a few low-end DX type lenses. A real test would be something like a 17-55mm/f2.8 DX wide open at 17mm/f2.8.

 

But if even I can point out such potential issues, I am sure that the smart engineers at Pentax and Sony are well aware of them. The real question is how much compromise you need to put into the lens design in order to have a considerably larger image circle for in-body stabilization to work.

 

I am the type that I use a tripod as much as necessary and therefore

I don't value VR as much, especially for short lenses. (Of course sometimes the situation does not allow a tripod.) Personally, I am mainly interested in having (in lens) VR in long lenses. For wide angles, I would rather have slightly better optics and no in-body stabilization.