Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 18, 2009, 10:59 AM   #1
Junior Member
omac104's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 11
Default Why? 17-35 and 17-55 F2.8, they don't make a VR Version.

Why? 17-35 and 17-55 F2.8, they don't make a VR Version.
omac104 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 18, 2009, 11:31 AM   #2
JimC's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378

You never know. They may decide to add it at some point.

But, VR is going to add weight, cost and complexity to a lens design (since you've got optical elements moving to offset blur from camera shake). So, I can understand them wanting to hold off on adding it to these types of lenses.

Keep in mind that blur from camera shake is magnified as focal lengths get longer. So, in most shooting conditions, VR is not needed as much with wider lenses (especially if they have wider available apertures, allowing faster shutter speeds).

The "rule of thumb" for reducing blur from camera shake is that shutter speeds need to be 1/focal length or faster. So, if you're shooting at a focal length of 35mm, you only need shutter speeds around 1/35 second to keep blur from camera shake under control. But, that's only a rule of thumb (since some users may be able to hold a camera much steadier compared to others). Note that you should use the "35mm equivalent" focal length when using a camera with an APS-C sensor.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2009, 12:24 PM   #3
JohnG's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

That weight/cost part is important. Combined with the idea of full-frame capable or not? For example, in the last couple years Canon came out with two different lenses:
16-35 f2.8 lens - full frame lens WITHOUT IS. It costs $1400
17-55 EF-S 2.8 IS - designed for crop, has IS but not pro-grade build - costs $960

Based on other lens offerings in Canon, one could expect adding IS to the 16-35 would have increased price by about $450. Plus the added weight and complexity of design.

Nikon is faced with a similar dilema - design a single lens and it's too expensive for the low end buyers and a lot of pros end up paying for VR that they would be happy to do without (for a lower price point).

For consumer grade short zooms there is a lot of demand for IS / VR in the lenses because customers coming up from digicams are used to the feature and Canon / Nikon have to compete against Oly / Pentax / SOny entry level cameras that provide image stabilization in-body. The higher up the lens food chain you go, it's tougher to get a return-on-investment for adding complexity/cost/weight of IS/VR given the fewer number of users of such a lens that demand the feature.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:44 PM.