Primes with VR/IS/OS/VC

[D-B-J]

Why is this not a thing? For example, I love my 85 1.8, better than the 70/80-200 at the same length, but wish it had some VR in it. Is there a technical reason this doesn't exist?



DISCUSS!!

 

[Msteelio91]

Shorter focal length and faster lense, doesn't need VR.

 

[Overread18 6]

VR/IS/OS/magic is only really needed in longer focal length lenses. Once you're starting to get to and beyond 200mm the ability to hand hold those longer, often heavier lenses becomes more tricky- especailly holding them steady for prolonged periods of time. I also find that the anti-shake helps give a steady viewfinder image to compose and take the shot with as well.

The anti-shake features were just not a requirement for shorter focal length lenses - however they are becoming more present in that market because they are ideal for video work.

 

[D-B-J]

Shorter focal length and faster lense, doesn't need VR.

I've been in low enough light with the 50 or 85 and wanted VR. Heck, I used it on my 16-35 last night so I could shoot a twilight shot at 1/10 handheld.

Jake

 

[480sparky42 41]

Shorter focal length and faster lense, doesn't need VR.

This makes no sense. An 80mm prime shot at f/8 is the same as an 80mm zoom shot at f/8.

My personal guess is primes are usually purchased by pros and serious amateurs, who don't really need VR. Zooms are marketed more to the casual shooter who relies on VR.

 

[gsgary]

Shorter focal length and faster lense, doesn't need VR.

I've been in low enough light with the 50 or 85 and wanted VR. Heck, I used it on my 16-35 last night so I could shoot a twilight shot at 1/10 handheld.

Jake

Sony A7 + Leica 80-200F4R vario elmar no is/vr shot at 100mm @ 1/20 iso 16,000 vr/is is not needed, never had it and don't want it, it just adds weight to the lens

 

[D-B-J]

Shorter focal length and faster lense, doesn't need VR.

This makes no sense. An 80mm prime shot at f/8 is the same as an 80mm zoom shot at f/8.

My personal guess is primes are usually purchased by pros and serious amateurs, who don't really need VR. Zooms are marketed more to the casual shooter who relies on VR.

So only noobs like VR? Seems stupid, if you ask me. I wanna shoot my 85 prime at 1/30th like I could a 70-200 VRII! Damn!

 

[astroNikon]

Don't the super pro zooms 400mm and up have VR ?
Not exactly noob territory

 

[robbins.photo]

Well the biggest reason for a prime is that they are cheaper than a zoom - because of their less complicated design. As a result you can get something much faster, much cheaper than a zoom. If you add in the complexity of VR/OS/VC, well you kind of shoot yourself in the foot really.

 

[Big Mike]

Here are a few fixed focal length (prime) lenses with IS/VR.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens 2186 B&H Photo

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens 4411B002 B&H Photo Video

Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens 4412B002 B&H Photo Video

Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM Lens 7034A002 B&H Photo Video

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4G ED VR AF Lens 2173 B&H Photo Video

 

[D-B-J]

Don't the super pro zooms 400mm and up have VR ?
Not exactly noob territory

True. Seems foolish to me that nikon makes a 16-35 zoom with VR but not the 24-70VR or 14-24VR or 50 and 85 1.8VR. Unless they decide that at less than f4, VR isn't necessary.

 

[astroNikon]

Well the biggest reason for a prime is that they are cheaper than a zoom - because of their less complicated design. As a result you can get something much faster, much cheaper than a zoom. If you add in the complexity of VR/OS/VC, well you kind of shoot yourself in the foot really.

Have you seen the price of an 85mm/1.4 G ?? $1,599.00 on a quick search of Amazon


I just don't think they've integrated it into all of their lineup.
And some, they may not. Maybe they think the 85 is a studio type lens, or more specifically, more geared towards pros who, with the lens already being BIG enough, doesn't need something else to make it BIGGER.

 

[D-B-J]

Well the biggest reason for a prime is that they are cheaper than a zoom - because of their less complicated design. As a result you can get something much faster, much cheaper than a zoom. If you add in the complexity of VR/OS/VC, well you kind of shoot yourself in the foot really.

Have you seen the price of an 85mm/1.4 G ?? $1,599.00 on a quick search of Amazon


I just don't think they've integrated it into all of their lineup.
And some, they may not. Maybe they think the 85 is a studio type lens, or more specifically, more geared towards pros who, with the lens already being BIG enough, doesn't need something else to make it BIGGER.

I guess. Just seems foolish.

 

[runnah]

VR/IS/OS/magic is only really needed in longer focal length lenses. Once you're starting to get to and beyond 200mm the ability to hand hold those longer, often heavier lenses becomes more tricky- especailly holding them steady for prolonged periods of time. I also find that the anti-shake helps give a steady viewfinder image to compose and take the shot with as well. The anti-shake features were just not a requirement for shorter focal length lenses - however they are becoming more present in that market because they are ideal for video work.

Beat me too it. I have a 35 with IS and I love it for and held video shooting. Works so good that half the time you'd never know it wasn't on a tripod.

I for one would love to see IS on a 50 and 85.

 

[D-B-J]

VR/IS/OS/magic is only really needed in longer focal length lenses. Once you're starting to get to and beyond 200mm the ability to hand hold those longer, often heavier lenses becomes more tricky- especailly holding them steady for prolonged periods of time. I also find that the anti-shake helps give a steady viewfinder image to compose and take the shot with as well. The anti-shake features were just not a requirement for shorter focal length lenses - however they are becoming more present in that market because they are ideal for video work.

Beat me too it. I have a 35 with IS and I love it for and held video shooting. Works so good that half the time you'd never know it wasn't on a tripod.

I for one would love to see IS on a 50 and 85.

Given all the responses I was worried I was the only one that felt that way..