New 50mm Lens From Nikon

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
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.

Under "normal" conditions there have actually been quite a lot of people
taking perfectly good photos for a long time without VR/IS/SR or whatever.
Not quite sure what VR can add under these conditions! If you are able to
shoot using good tecnique with settings that stop the action and have
appropriate aperture settings and low ISO settings then VR or not does
indeed become rather moot.


Cheers.

Pete

Paul Furman wrote:
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.

Does it?
Extra weight, complexity, an extra element when it's not needed.

frederick wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
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.

Does it?
Extra weight, complexity, an extra element when it's not needed.

An extra element may not be necessary. I have been very pleased with the
capability VR/IS has added to my system.

David

Pete D wrote:
[]
Under "normal" conditions there have actually been quite a lot of
people taking perfectly good photos for a long time without VR/IS/SR
or whatever. Not quite sure what VR can add under these conditions!
If you are able to shoot using good tecnique with settings that stop
the action and have appropriate aperture settings and low ISO
settings then VR or not does indeed become rather moot.


Cheers.

Pete

... and there have quite a lot of blurred photos as well, which VR/IS can
help with. Not everyone is taking action shots - some of us photograph
churches or night scenes hand-held (tripods not allowed or inconvenient)
with exposures in the 1/25s .. 1/5s range, and find that VR improves the
chance of a sharp shot.

David

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
Pete D wrote:
[]
Under "normal" conditions there have actually been quite a lot of
people taking perfectly good photos for a long time without VR/IS/SR
or whatever. Not quite sure what VR can add under these conditions!
If you are able to shoot using good tecnique with settings that stop
the action and have appropriate aperture settings and low ISO
settings then VR or not does indeed become rather moot.


Cheers.

Pete

.. and there have quite a lot of blurred photos as well, which VR/IS can
help with. Not everyone is taking action shots - some of us photograph
churches or night scenes hand-held (tripods not allowed or inconvenient)
with exposures in the 1/25s .. 1/5s range, and find that VR improves the
chance of a sharp shot.

David


Hands up everyone that have never taken a blurred shot using VR/IS/SR????

Hands up everyone that have never taken a blurred shot using VR/IS/SR????


Let's expand that a bit, hands up everyone that have never taken a blurred
shot, with or without VR/IS/SR? I believe the field of hands will narrow
significantly. Isn't the whole point of image stabilization to improve the
shooter's odds of getting a good shot?

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
[]
You got it! If VR/IS had any benefits, or fool the pros into
believing there is, in these focal ranges they would have put it in
there. And I'm glad to see Nikon not strapping the miraculous
14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 with VR.

Rita

But those of us who prefer the lower cost, weight and bulk of the f/5.6
zoom lenses may appreciate the IS/VR rather more.

David

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
...

You just hit on the key word, "marketing" that is what is driving this.
We
have SUVs on American roads that have 16 airbags, 14 cup holders, heated
seats, 3 DVD players, etc... That will fall apart if you tried to get any
"utility" out of them or take them off road. I'm not saying VR/IS doesn't
work, I'm saying it has limitations that many people have yet to recognize
or want to admit to.





Rita




I can't comment on cars as I only look at what's inside them when I need to
buy a new one. My Mazda 3 is in the garage all week as I catch a bus to and
from work daily.

However, I have the nifty 18-200VR on my D80 most of the time and sure don't
turn VR off when hand holding, not even when at 18mm. I'm happy to have VR
working and I do shoot wide and slower than I'm really capable of handling.

"Tony Polson" 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?

I suppose you could consider the 85mm f/2 AI a Mark I. After all, every
one embraced that lens over the older f/1.8 version so enthusiastically,
right :-)? Seriously, I think the poster meant to say that it would
use the newer "II" version of VR.

Draw your own conclusion of the logic of introducing an 85mm f/2 AF-S VR
without upgrading the flagship 85mm f/1.4D, but it wouldn't be the
weirdest choice Nikon's marketing department has ever made.

There are photos out of Thailand of an "escaped" 16-85mm f/3.5~5.6 VR,
but usually these "insider" lists are rarely any more than a compliation
of wish-lists and previously published prediction articles. Nikon's
fairly strict about enforcing NDA's, and Nikon sales reps aren't on
the "need to know" list until very late in the game.

For example, compare the list given here with this one.
http://www.bythom.com/2008predictions.htm

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

Rita Berkowitz wrote:

Only if they are usable. VR doesn't prevent motion blur from subject
movement. There's no replacement for displacement. A fast lens and
high ISO trumps VR every time.

Not true, and you know it, if you need a shallow depth of
field for compositional purposes.




Or a fast lens and good hand holding
technique also trumps VR. I'll take a fast lens over a 100 stops of
unusable VR any day of the week.



So you don't ever worry about composition? Gotcha.

Doug McDonald