Speculating what Nikon VR zooms will be coming out soon

[ilkka_nissila]

Mark, yes, in the US many people can afford these types of lenses. But while the US is significant, how large a proportion of total lens sales is to US customers?

 

The US is unusual because salaries are high, taxes are low and lenses are cheap. Almost where ever you go outside of the US, salaries go down (for the same work), taxes go up, and lens prices go up. In most places in the world, it is basically unthinkable that an amateur purchase a 500/4 especially if they have a family and are not millionaires. 300/4s are much more common, but I very rarely find use for mine these days. In the US, I can buy lenses in 1/3 of the time I would need to save the money needed in Finland. Given that I do the same job. If I worked in a company, that ratio would probably be closer to 1/10.

 

Now why the rant? I'm just trying to say that while the US might have 5% of the world's population, they probably have more than 50% of the big lenses.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Now why the rant? I'm just trying to say that while the US might have 5% of the world's

population, they probably have more than 50% of the big lenses.</i><P>

 

Even if your wild speculation is true, Canon and Nikon do not give two hoots about where

their customers live. All they care about is whether they will make money if they build a

particular product. It would not matter if 100% of big-lens buyers were in the US: if there

is money to be made from telephoto lenses, they'll build them. Canon seems to have

done very well from its suite of stabilised teles (including the very popular 300/4 IS, which

is selling for about $1200). I see them all over the place: bird shooters, sports

photographers, you name it. <P>

 

And I don't buy the oft-repeated argument that Canon can "afford" to make these lenses

because they are a "huge company" that's much bigger than Nikon. Canon Inc. doesn't

subsidize their photography division -- even the supertelephoto lens sector -- and run it

at a loss as some sort of altruistic gesture to nature photographers. Like any business,

they're in it for the money, and I'll bet they make a bucketfull selling IS telephotos. Nikon

has thus far failed to pursue that area and it's cost them, at least in terms of market share

and probably in terms of profit. They obviously have the VR technology well in hand and

it's a puzzle why they haven't pushed it into long lenses where it's really beneficial

[charlie_johnson1]

The solution to this problem of image shake while using a short lense is resolve pretty easy without buying a lens with VR. Its called:

 

1.) Buy a tripod or

 

2.) Buy a monopod or

 

3.) Use proper handhold and steadying techniques to get your shot.

 

The solution is Bogen, NOT VR or IS. Technology is not always the cure for technique. I might be shooting digital these days, but I still take the time to get the shot like I was shooting film. Anything under 1/60th needs rock steady support for the shot to come out. I shake enough by myself to know that I need proper support or steadying when shooting slow speeds. Support rules, no matter the angle of the lens.