@Hans

Don't you think that's a bit arrogant of a statement? Accusing Thom of little understanding of optical performance? Thom was suggesting that the 17-55 2.8 has a VR, every other glass manufacturer has OS/IS/VC implemented in that range regardless of wight compromise. The 17-55 costs more than $1200 and it's ought to have VR at that price range. VR is very useful particularly for less capable DX cameras with less low light performance.

I tried to follow your arguments in order to learn and expand my understanding of production lines without being judgmental, however, such a statement completely discredits your objectivity and credibility, with all do respect of course.

hijazist wrote:
@Hans

Don't you think that's a bit arrogant of a statement? Accusing Thom of little understanding of optical performance? Thom was suggesting that the 17-55 2.8 has a VR, every other glass manufacturer has OS/IS/VC implemented in that range regardless of wight compromise. The 17-55 costs more than $1200 and it's ought to have VR at that price range. VR is very useful particularly for less capable DX cameras with less low light performance.

I tried to follow your arguments in order to learn and expand my understanding of production lines without being judgmental, however, such a statement completely discredits your objectivity and credibility, with all do respect of course.


Am I arrogant? No I am not.
Just because 17-55 2.8 has a VR doesn't meant that 24-70 2.8 having VR will look, perform and weight the same. This is because you have forgotten that the image circle covered by the DX lenses is much smaller than FX and also only covers the center region, which has much less distortion than the edges.
Like I said people are asking for lenses with corner to corner sharpness now a days especially for digital camera where CA come into play.
This is coming from a guy who has work with people that design lenses or elements for most major manufacturers.

Well I haven't worked with people working with lenses and I work in language documentation which couldn't be further from optics but still you didn't get my point. Thom said Nikon should introduce a VR version of the 17-55 2.8, you said it reflects his lack of understanding of optical design and both Nikon/Canon are aware of that. How come we have the following if it's such a redundant feature on WA zooms?

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX
Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 DII VC
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II

I am sure there's others that I am not aware of

hijazist wrote:
Well I haven't worked with people working with lenses and I work in language documentation which couldn't be further from optics but still you didn't get my point. Thom said Nikon should introduce a VR version of the 17-55 2.8, you said it reflects his lack of understanding of optical design and both Nikon/Canon are aware of that. How come we have the following if it's such a redundant feature on WA zooms?

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX
Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 DII VC
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS II

I am sure there's others that I am not aware of

Can you please compare the corner to corner sharpness and resolution for each of these lenses to lets say the 14-24 f2.8G. Oh! don't forget about the edge distortion too. Than maybe you will understand.
Than read about Thom Hogan's initial D800 review that he said: "Thus, maximizing a D700 is a bit different than maximizing a D800 (okay, I'm theorizing here, as I don't have a D800 in my hands yet to test that assumption; but still, I'm pretty sure from everything I've heard and seen so far and the side evidence of other recent sensors that this will be the case)."
http://bythom.com/d800intro.htm
I think he must be joking by putting this in writing

hans98ko wrote:
Just because 17-55 2.8 has a VR [...]

The 17-55 does not have VR. That was the point you perhaps missed: Thom is suggesting that it would benefit from VR. I happen to agree, and -- as was just pointed out above -- there are several other lenses in this range that do have stabilization. My 16-35, for example, is a much better lens for me because of the stabilization.

I hardly think you can argue against stabilization in a 17-55 and mention Canon in the same breath, since Canon does provide IS in their 17-55.

I am aware of 17-55 2.8 does not have VR, but if it has compare to a 24-70 f2.8 also having it. the performance, size and weight will be very different because one only uses the center portion while the other has to cover a wider area.
Keep reading what I already wrote and if you get it you got it, if not than I will have to leave it here because it is going to be a long long theoretical discussion that I am not prepare to get into.

You keep going on about a 24-70. Why is that? There is no 24-70 in this discussion. Allow me to refresh your memory.

The point was that Thom said the 17-55 should have VR. You said he doesn't understand optics and there are serious problems of which Canon and Nikon are both well aware. Hussein noted all the other lenses comparable to Nikon's 17-55, including Canon's 17-55/2.8 IS, which are stabilized. So, it's certainly possible and neither Canon, nor Sigma, nor Tamron have seen any problem with doing so.

If you want to have a constructive and useful discussion, it is up to you to support your assertions that this is undesirable or infeasible. Simply challenging everyone else to do the research so they'll agree with you is not a very successful debate technique. Or perhaps, as you've said, this is a discussion you're really not prepared to have.

Almost all the lenses mentioned so far with IS/VR are either DX or EF-S and not FX or EF lenses for the WA range.
The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is a DX lens.
Like I already mentioned that it is not impossible but rather the advantages and disadvantages of having it for that focal range with large aperture opening.
For FX WA lenses it will come with disadvantages that will affect the overall performances of the lens, as in corner to corner sharpness, distortion, weight, size and...
As for Thom there were numerous incidents that he asked for VR to be on the FX WA lenses as in this report: http://bythom.com/nikkor-14-24mm-lens-review.htm[/url]
as you can see under the rating that he gave it a negative for NO VR, there are other incidents too as for the 24-70 f2.8G FX lens which he locked from viewing. Can you imagine all the disadvantages mentioned above if there were VR for this already clasified as bulky and heavy lens by Thom?
You said that I keep going on about a 24-70. Well, that is because you keep asking the same thing over and over again. The 24-70 f2.8 is just an example for that focal range with a wide aperture opening and is a close FX representation of the DX 17-55 f2.8.
Like I said you either get it or you either don't, for those who work in the industry I am sure they will pick it up real fast or remind them of what they already knew.
I think most of the information a layman needs to know about VR on FX WA are already written here so there is no need to continue with this discussion and keep bringing up Thom Hogan, who is not 100% sure or correct as I already shown with examples. At times he too based on hear say just like others.

Trying to understand too, because you mentioned DX in the last page:

hans98ko wrote:
And then with respect to Thom's DX lenses review, he talked about requiring new VR for wide angle zooms. This shows how little understanding of optical design he has.


So in the context of DX, why would you say that Thom has little understanding of optical design if there are already examples of DX WA zooms with IS/VR already? I think that's what Rodolfo and Hussain are trying to point out, also by listing down current products.

Zichar wrote:
Trying to understand too, because you mentioned DX in the last page:

So in the context of DX, why would you say that Thom has little understanding of optical design if there are already examples of DX WA zooms with IS/VR already? I think that's what Rodolfo and Hussain are trying to point out, also by listing down current products.

Hi Zichar,
Welcome back!

Maybe I should have dropped the DX in my very first post and say "Thom has little understanding of optical design", might have caused less confusion.

Well, you see every single piece of element we add to the design of the lens will cause a percentage loss of light transmission. For example even with a very good, flat and planer piece of filter will give 0.2% - 1% loss of transmission. To have IS/VR we have an additional of at lease 2 elements most of the time which offer a possibility of about 0.5% - 2% or even more transmission loss, and an additional of 4 surfaces offering higher opportunities for inter element reflection. Here we have not even gone into other side effects which can be a long long discussion as I mentioned before which I really do not want to get into.
The above reason is why almost all non-tele prime lenses does not have IS/VR because the designers are chasing after image quality and nothing else.
A IS/VR lens is good to have if one really can't handhold it for certain exposure, but if given a choice to have or not to have as in f4.0 IS/VR or f2.8, I will choose the later and that is my personal preference.

Do notice that most of the FX WA IS/VR lenses at the moment is at f4.0 rather than f2.8, because at f2.8 it is going to be really huge and heavy and having poor edge performance wide open.

^^^ This clearly shows you do not understand optical design. As light goes through a lens, it goes through a number of optical elements, some of which may be quite small, even for an f/2.8 lens. In fact, for a given required image circle and focal length, the rear elements are all about the same size regardless of the maximum aperature of the lens ... you'll notice that in most VR lenses, the VR elements tend to be toward the back of the lense where elements are smaller.

VR makes little difference in the size of a lens. A few examples:

Nikon 18-55VR is only 0.2 inches longer and 2oz heavier than the 18-55 without VR
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS is the same size as the Nikon 17-55 without VR but is in fact lighter!!!!!

That pretty well torpedos your whole explenation. Dude, stop talking, the more you do the dummer you look.

Andre Labonte wrote:
^^^ This clearly shows you do not understand optical design. As light goes through a lens, it goes through a number of optical elements, some of which may be quite small, even for an f/2.8 lens. In fact, for a given required image circle and focal length, the rear elements are all about the same size regardless of the maximum aperature of the lens ... you'll notice that in most VR lenses, the VR elements tend to be toward the back of the lense where elements are smaller.

VR makes little difference in the size of a lens. A few examples:

Nikon 18-55VR is only 0.2 inches longer and 2oz heavier than the 18-55 without VR
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS is the same size as the Nikon 17-55 without VR but is in fact lighter!!!!!

That pretty well torpedos your whole explenation. Dude, stop talking, the more you do the dummer you look.

Please do not make me laugh at what you just put out.
[Edit]
I didn't want to add this in till you replied so as to show how much you know.
Using 2 DX lenses with image circle not even optimised for the F-mount can have lots of excess space yet to be utilise, but using FX lenses will be very different. And using a pair of variable aperture lenses with f3.5-5.6 even make it more laughable, isn't f3.5-5.6 already showing light loss when zoom compare to fixed f2.8 or f4 lenses? With aperture starting at f3.5-5.6 most shots will look exceptable to good anyway, but it will be very different if it is at f1.4 or f2.8 corner to corner.
[End Edit]
If you are just talking about the rear element everyone knew it is about the same size base on the image circle, but all others are base on the focal length and the field of coverage starting from the front element. When one squeeze in a couple of elements between 2 groups of elements, it actually increases the focal length and decreases the field coverage which means some kind of compensation are needed. Not going into details to make you smarter.
For the example you pointed out about the Nikon 18-55 VR and non-VR, isn't 0.2 inches and 2 oz an increase? How about the diameter and most importantly of all the final image quality taking into account that the later always has some kind of improvement to the previous design?
For Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS being lighter than the Nikon 17-55 w/o VR , they cannot be compare to each other because they are of different design and using different materials and elements, just like an AI-S 50mm f1.4 and AF-S 50mm f1.4G with a motor in it is still lighter. There are these materials we all call plastic, polycarbonate, metal, glass and so on. There are so much things that you do not know about and yet you are trying to show how well informed you are.

Finally calling people Dude and dummer doesn't make you smarter.

I think I have enough of these rude communication from you.

END OF TRANSMISSION.

BTW .. the 18-55VR is only .2 inches wider than the non VR version and it's reviews are MUCH better than the 18-55 non VR in terms of image quality despite being released only shortly after.

The point is that you can make a VR lens without it being so much larger than non-VR version and it's image quality can be just as good as the non-VR version.

You used the oposite claim (i.e. that VR adds significantly to size and weight) to indicate that Thom Hogan does not understand optical design ... I've shown your claim to be false.

Also, even the rear element must take into account the focal length and FOV, my statement is that for a given focal length, the rear elements are all about the same size due to the image circle. The elements closest to the rear are more in line as far as size goes to the rear element than the front element which is 100% driven by the f-stop (in terms of diameter). This further adds to my point that VR need not add a lot to the size and weight of a lens as you claim.

Can't you get anything right?

good article by Thom Hogan, agree on what he says.

I think though that Nikon is on a delay due to the flood, it shows in the numbers of released bodies: before; 3-4 per year, 2011 only one. 2012 4 again, so there is two missing in 2011.

My thoughts are that looking at the 24 MP 3200, Nikon will beef up the 5200 considerably, this should come next, I guess. The 5200 will have more MP and a newer sensor than the D7000 so... they will probabely merge D7100 and D400 into one semipro body, which probabely comes somewhat later to give the D600 some time to establish. This seemst to make the most sense for me anyway. The D7000 is due for a replacement, and I doubt Nikon will drop this camera AND the D300s replacement at once. Seems unlikly to me. Why should they?


just my thoughts after reading Thom Hogan. might be wishful thinking...

hans - I'm guessing English isn't your first or primary language, so possibly your tone isn't intentional, but I agree with the others that you aren't helping yourself here.

Thom Hogan tends to write in a somewhat simpler way on his website vs. his technical writing and user guides, but if you've read his work beyond the website I think it is safe to say that Thom understands optics and sensor technology extremely well. Almost certainly better than you do.

Thom's issues with Nikon are simple - they are delivering flawed products on a major scale with minimal acknowledgement of the issue or communication with their customers. Thom rightfully has an issue with it, and is choosing to hold Nikon responsible. How much credibility would he have if he continued to recommend a product in that scenario? He's choosing not to be a fanboy.

As for why customers of Nikon are frustrated with them regarding the lack of a transition product, I think this is entirely natural. There is no acceptable substitute for D200/D300/D300s shooters in the current product line. Every FX product is too expensive (both body and platform) and/or too slow (other than the D4) for the BIF/sports shooters that make up a large group of those customers. The DX products have consumer/prosumer handling and build that those shooters don't want. You can debate whether you agree with that all you want, but the fact is there are a lot of folks who want a D400. Not a D7000, not a full-frame camera of any description, but a D400.

Canon has the 7D squarely in this area, and while it isn't young, you could argue that it is still very competitive spec-wise. There is over a $1000 jump between the D7000 and the D600 - it is unlikely that Nikon will ignore the price cell(s) in between.

Lastly, if you're going to continue to participate in this thread, I'd ask that you choose to state opinions as such. You keep making it sound like you have facts we aren't privy to, and I'd say this - if you have facts, give them to us. If you don't have facts, don't make it sound like you do.

+1, well stated.

EBH