New 50mm Lens From Nikon

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"wshl" wrote:

5) Nikkor AFS 85 mm f/2 VR II,


How can there be a Mark II version when there wasn't a Mark I?

The II refers to the VR, not anything else about the lens. New higher end VR
lenses have VR II, which is supposed to have about a one-stop advantage over
the original VR method still used on some new economy lenses.

Neil

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Rita Berkowitz wrote:

wshl wrote:

later (end 2008, beginning 2009)
4) Nikkor AFS 50 mm f/1,4,

SWEET! GOTTA GET ONE!

7) PC Nikkor AFS 28 mm f/2,8

Good choice! Lots of possibilities. GOTTA GET ONE! Not sure how much
benefit AF-S is going to be, but a new optical formula is always welcome.

How many lens do you have?

Don www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Neil Harrington wrote:
Rita wrote

with the introduction of great high-ISO sensors VR/IS is going to
be obsolete in 5-years or less.

Never. Whatever benefits may result from higher ISOs, VR can only improve
on.

Stops are stops wherever you can get them.

Paul Furman wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
Rita wrote
with the introduction of great high-ISO sensors VR/IS is going to be
obsolete in 5-years or less.

Never. Whatever benefits may result from higher ISOs, VR can only
improve on.

Stops are stops wherever you can get them.

And sensors are running into the laws of physics. You can't
beat those (without faking the picture, of course.)

Doug McDonald

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

Absolutely no interest. This is nothing more that a Canon marketing clone
since VR doesn't add any benefit to lenses of 50mm and wider. Bad move
Nikon!




Maybe you're built like a brick dunny and can hold a camera rock steady, but
please don't assume everyone is like that. The camera and lens
manufacturers at least understand that the majority of camera users,
including the P&S brigade find that image stabilisation is useful at any
focal length. Why not just respect their judgment, after all, they have
marketing departments and the test the market for their products.

N wrote:

Maybe you're built like a brick dunny and can hold a camera rock
steady, but please don't assume everyone is like that. The camera
and lens manufacturers at least understand that the majority of
camera users, including the P&S brigade find that image stabilisation
is useful at any focal length. Why not just respect their judgment,
after all, they have marketing departments and the test the market
for their products.

LOL a sensible post...how refreshing.

"Marutchi" BarbaraH*REMOVE wrote in message
...
N wrote:

Maybe you're built like a brick dunny and can hold a camera rock
steady, but please don't assume everyone is like that. The camera
and lens manufacturers at least understand that the majority of
camera users, including the P&S brigade find that image stabilisation
is useful at any focal length. Why not just respect their judgment,
after all, they have marketing departments and the test the market
for their products.

LOL a sensible post...how refreshing.


heh

N wrote:
"Marutchi" BarbaraH*REMOVE wrote in message
...
N wrote:

Maybe you're built like a brick dunny and can hold a camera rock
steady, but please don't assume everyone is like that. The camera
and lens manufacturers at least understand that the majority of
camera users, including the P&S brigade find that image stabilisation
is useful at any focal length. Why not just respect their judgment,
after all, they have marketing departments and the test the market
for their products.

LOL a sensible post...how refreshing.

If there was any sense from P&S marketing, then they'd be selling 4-6mp
P&S cameras capable of good image quality, not crazy 12mp cameras
producing smudged watercolour images.

Instead, they churn out what's easy to sell by $10/hour shop assistants
to an ignorant public.

Better high iso performance at W/A focal lengths is a much better
solution than IS. Whether it's better to have it anyway - even when it's
useless - is a moot point.
Highest quality new wide and ultra wide zooms from Nikon don't have
IS/VR. Then again, they're intended for a pro market, where results are
measured by users in $.

frederick wrote:

Better high iso performance at W/A focal lengths is a much better
solution than IS.

Sure. Yes.

Whether it's better to have it anyway - even when it's
useless - is a moot point.
Highest quality new wide and ultra wide zooms from Nikon don't have
IS/VR. Then again, they're intended for a pro market, where results are
measured by users in $.

I don't get any of this. VR adds to it all.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
[]
Huh? I haven't seen much benefits of VR on 50 and wider lenses.

I have. Others have. I think it's just a matter of faith with you
that VR doesn't help 50mm and shorter. Some sort of religious
dedication.

... or having shares in a tripod manufacturer? G

David