rmc1 wrote:
AF-S and VR took the 105mm macro from 560g to 750g; I'd fear this will be the same and it's currently 550g.
Speculation.
Has anyone ever taken a look at the 18-55 and 55-200 post VR and VR versions. That right there tells me that VR doesn't increase mass. The optical formula is likely the reason the 105 grew in size.
I have also never seen a review--ever--that showed VR degraded optical performance. I have never seen anyone show evidence of VR degrading corner sharpness. I have seen how it can improve it.
Anything above 70mm and I want VR. The lens will be as expensive as shit and huge regardless of VR, might as well keep the masses from finding something to bitch about and we all know if this lens is released without VR, Nikon will be the worst ever until they listen to the real photographers and they happen to want VR!!! Am I right? You know it.
lol, the only reason you don't want VR is because 1 you haven't used it before, and don't know how beneficial it can be, and 2, because you don't want any added weight or expense.
Real photographers was a joke alluding to how a lot of people on forums think they are the mass market and should be catered to by Nikon, not that it wouldn't be nice.
I don't always need VR, but when it was there and I did need. Hell yeah!
My point still stand apparently. No one is showing me any evidence that VR increases the size or decreases the optics. I am sure price is effected, but when lenses are so expensive, does a $300 or so premium really hurt that bad?
i couldn't even imagine how amazing it would be to use a 85mm f1.4 with VR, but one thing to take into account... you might be able to stabilize the the vibrations from your hands, but you can't stop your subject from moving. chances are, if a new version of this lens popped up on the market i wouldn't get it. but that would mostly due to me being a student making very little money... if i had a way to validate my expenses, chances are i would want to pick up an 85mm VR. however, what would have excited me even more would be a wide angle f1.4 prime with VR *cough*35mm*cough* but maybe i'm alone on that. I couldn't imagine the sort of hand-held, low-light possibilities you could unleash with f1.4 on a wide angle with relatively clean 3200 ISO. The results would be unreal.
luminosity wrote:
What about those of us who don't want or need VR? Are we not "real" photographers? Did "real" photographers only come into existence in recent years?
I have never once wished I had VR on any lens I have ever used.
I have been on and off about this one for some time as well. i may just get one after all just to see "what the fuss is all about".
What should I sell then in order to fund this one ?
14-24 - no way man
24/2.8 - nope
50/1.4 -maybe
100/2.8 -macro definitely no
300/4 - love it too much and use it much
any suggestions anyone ?
I would sell the 24mm F2.8, unless you do a lot of hiking or travel where you don't bring the 14-24mm, or you like the 24mm for filter use.
Can't sell the 50mm f1.4 IMO, it's your only 1.4
So, sell either the 24mm or the macro and get tubes for the 85 like was mentioned above. btw, I'm not familiar with that 100/2.8 is it a Sigma or something? or did you mean 105/2.8?
I do need 24 for small spaces area when I just cant have 14-24 with me. when i hike i always take 14-24 and 300 so dont think that will work.
since I got 24 I hardly use 50 now - not sure why since I had it on all the time. maybe I like much wider angle of view
100/2.8 is Tokina AT-X Pro - damn sharp lens and I do have tubers for it
I will have to think about it now. Maybe I will end up selling 14-24 and getting 85 and something in primes of 17mm - third party i would assume since Nikon does not have anything decent
