Why no 500mm f/4 VR lens? Maybe it's the body!

I have been wondering for a long time why Nikon has not put VR into its long

telephotos, the 500mm and 600mm lens. The only things that keep me from

replacing my aging Sigma is that I am waiting for VR in these lenses.

 

But, what if Nikon is planning to put VR into the DSLR body instead? Like

Minolta, Pentax and others. Then, there is no need for VR in these lenses as it

will be taken care of in the body. Of course, owners of older bodies will be

out of luck, but given the frequency with which DSLR owners upgrade, that may

not be an issue. Or is it?

Perhaps sensor crop kills a lot of the demand for these lenses?

If they're planning on an in-body stabilization system, then why are they sticking VR in all

sorts of other lenses? Lots of folks have wondered for years why Nikon has been so slow

in putting VR into their superteles. It's cost them a lot of brand-switching by sport and

nature shooters, who have had the option of stabilized Canon superteles for 7 years now.

 

My guess? Simple economics -- they figure they can make more $$ by concentrating on

lenses many people will buy. They also have to figure that a big chunk of the potential

user base has already defected to Canon, and isn't likely to defect back at this point.

 

Finally, I've heard arguments that in-lens stabilization allows the system to be more

precisely 'tuned' for a particular focal length than is possible with in-body stabilization,

and that this is especially important for long teles. The logic sounds reasonable but I've

seen no empirical tests.

That is one issue that puzzles me. It took Nikon 6 years but they finally added VR to the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S last year. There is a 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR. I simply don't understand why they do not put VR on the 500mm/f4.

 

In-body IS is not going to work very well with super teles. In those cases you want the element to counter any vibration as close to the pivit point of the lens as possible. The body happens to be the farthest point from the pivit in the set up. As a result, a little bit of vibration from the lens will require a lot of movement on the sensor to compensate, making it less effective.

I would think it's a combination of reasons:

 

1) Nikon makes far more money selling a million 18-70mm a year, as oppossed to selling a few thousand 500mm or 600mm lenses that can only be afforded by wealthy photographers, periodicals and pros who truly need such lenses.

 

2) It is very expensive and time consuming to create such lenses, and thus perhaps they are currently in development.

 

3) The profit margin on these lenses is much smaller than on consumer oriented lenses. Furthermore, the time it takes to make a return on the development costs on mega-optics is much longer, thus reducing the incentive for Nikon to invest in redoing them.

 

4) With the APS-C sensor virtually dominating Nikon's entire product line of bodies, there is MUCH smaller demand for such powerful optics, as the magnification factor turns these lenses into true monsters of focal length!

 

I would imagine that since we have seen the release of the 200mm 2G AF-S VR, 300mm 2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR, and the 200-400mm VR in just the past couple of years, we will eventually see the 400, 500, and 600 released in due time.

 

Rob

and we do have the VR'd 70-300mm to look forward to... thank goodness they spent their time and energy on that. ;)

Hmmm, I wonder. The VR technology seems of marginal value at best for tripod-mounted lenses, as Mr. R�rslett reports from the Norwegian woods. You guys hand-holding that long glass?

<I>Hmmm, I wonder. The VR technology seems of marginal value at best for tripod-

mounted lenses, as Mr. R?rslett reports from the Norwegian woods. You guys hand-

holding that long glass?</i><P>

 

Since Bjorn sticks mainly to Nikon gear, he probably has not had any experience with a

really big tele with stabilization on a tripod -- like a 500 or 600 with 1.4X or 2X TC. With

those, you can see in the viewfinder that IS helps, and my experience with a Canon 500/4

is that pictures are almost invariably sharper with IS on than with IS off. Also, keep in

mind that even if the lens is on a solid, robust tripod, it's quite common to shoot with the

head not locked tight for rigidity -- tracking moving subjects, for example. And while the

need for stabilization decreases at very short exposure times, it's also rather common to

shoot at moderate or even rather low shutter speeds (one doesn't always have the noonday

sun on the subject). <P>

 

Finally, there are times when a tripod is simply not practical. Shooting from inside a

vehicle, for example (one of the very best ways to get close to wildlife). And yes, there are

times when I handhold a 500 mm. Occasionally there isn't time to get the lens onto a

tripod. In some situations tracking with a tripod is not effective or even possible, for

example, birds flying high overhead (these shots of white-tailed kites fit both criteria;

focal length 700mm):<P>

 

<Center>

<img src ="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds3/WTkite22.jpg">

<img src ="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds3/WTkite37.jpg"> <img src

="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/birds3/WTkite27.jpg">

 

</center><P>

Another: these <A HREF="http://faculty.ucr.edu/~chappell/INW/mammals/

seaotters.html">sea otters</a> were all shot with a hand-held 500 mm at 700 or 1000

mm (with TCs) at shutter speeds of 1/400 to 1/640. A tripod simply wasn't feasible

where the pictures were taken.

As a long time Nikon shooter, I also wish they had offered VR on their long lenses several years ago. It may be too late. First, at sports events, e.g. football, surfing, racing, Canon absolutely dominates. Second, the 200-400 VR is an excellent zoom lens and may reduce the demand for longer range non zoom telephotos. Third, for ever longer shots, I use a 300-800 F5.6 Sigma Monster which is near equal in optical quality to the Nikons or Canons and has a fantastic zoom range.

A cogent reply, Dr. Chappell; I stand corrected. Beautiful work. --HWD

My guess would be that they want you to buy the non-VR version first :)

 

They must have a big stockpile of afs 500mm. Maybe they should make a sale!

 

And then, how many of us are willing to buy a 10.000 dollars 500mm VR?

 

They are really worried about selling lots of 18-70 and DSLRs, as someone pointed.

according to thom hogan nikon filed some of the first patents for VR/IS. but knowing nikon, they wouldnt put VR into the body. too cheap, they need to sell the individual lenses. think of how many 80-400mm's they've sold. compare that to how much they'd make putting VR into a body.

 

and as ive heard before, nikon doesnt put VR into it because photographer were taking great photos BEFORE we even had VR. nikons amazing optics and beautiful lenses keep them in business.

 

i think a 500mm f/2.8 would crush all of canons IS?