Primes with VR/IS/OS/VC

[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.

I guess. Just seems foolish.

I dunno .... I prefer no VR myself. Just keep shutter a bit higher.
makes the lenses bigger and those of us on limited budgets, makes them out of my price range.

I do like the VR where it helps the noob on a regular variable aperture lens, capture a shot they otherwise would not be able too becz of a slower shutter speed. My one VR lens taught me alot when I would switch it off and practice holding steady.

 

[Msteelio91]

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.

Shorter focal length. Lol.

The marketing part is spot on, they're not going to bother since we're all fine with a non-VR version anyway. They need to make money and they run the data to find out who buys what the most.

 

[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.

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

Have you seen the prices on zoom lenses with a huge aperture like 1.4? I'm guessing probably not.. lol. 1.4 is a monster aperture - for a zoom lens with that kind of aperture you'd be looking at something big, heavy, and super expensive. That's why most of your zooms start at 2.8 or higher. The sigma 18-35 mm 1.8 is a pretty short variation in focal length for a zoom, and it weighs in at 1.78 lbs. A nikkor 35 mm 1.8 prime weighs roughly about 7 ounces and is significantly cheaper.

That isn't to say that primes are better than zooms etc, just pointing out that it's a lot cheaper and easier for a company to make a prime than a zoom - a lot less goes into the manufacturing.

 

[greybeard36 8]

my 105 micro Nikkor has VR

 

[D-B-J]

my 105 micro Nikkor has VR

But that's not an 85

 

[Derrel]

My 200 f/2 has VR, which leads to better panning shots than any tripod can do, and the lens is almost always used on a monopod, so VR is pretty useful. The lens is too big and heavy, and also very front-heavy, so hand-holding it is much more difficult than on a better-balanced lens like my 300/2.8 or even my 400/3.5, both of which weigh more, but which are much easier to handle, due to balance issues. VR does lead to a much more complicated lens design than a lens that has no VR. The higher-end zoom lenses are now mostly trending toward VR/IS/OS/VC on newer designs. I think once one manufacturer offers in-lens stabilization, it then becomes a sort of Keeping up with the Joneses type of race to offer the same. Not coincidentally, some of the best current zoom lenses in specific categories (like 70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/4) are now offering in-lens stabilization.

Simple prime lenses are not selling in near the volume that the workhorse lenses are. MORE pros and semi-pros own a 70-200 f/2.8 than own say, the 105 or 136 Defocus Control Nikkors, or the Canon 100mm f/2, and probably more than own the Canon 135/2-L USM. Prime lenses have lost a lot of their allure and lost a LOT of sales volume as the newer zoom lenses have become so,so good optically.

 

[D-B-J]

My 200 f/2 has VR, which leads to better panning shots than any tripod can do, and the lens is almost always used on a monopod, so VR is pretty useful. The lens is too big and heavy, and also very front-heavy, so hand-holding it is much more difficult than on a better-balanced lens like my 300/2.8 or even my 400/3.5, both of which weigh more, but which are much easier to handle, due to balance issues. VR does lead to a much more complicated lens design than a lens that has no VR. The higher-end zoom lenses are now mostly trending toward VR/IS/OS/VC on newer designs. I think once one manufacturer offers in-lens stabilization, it then becomes a sort of Keeping up with the Joneses type of race to offer the same. Not coincidentally, some of the best current zoom lenses in specific categories (like 70-200mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/4) are now offering in-lens stabilization.

Simple prime lenses are not selling in near the volume that the workhorse lenses are. MORE pros and semi-pros own a 70-200 f/2.8 than own say, the 105 or 136 Defocus Control Nikkors, or the Canon 100mm f/2, and probably more than own the Canon 135/2-L USM. Prime lenses have lost a lot of their allure and lost a LOT of sales volume as the newer zoom lenses have become so,so good optically.

Soooooo we just need to convince other photographers to buy primes only? Challenge accepted.

 

[Ido]

Panasonic's relatively-new 42.5mm (85mm equivalent) f/1.2 has optical image stabilization, and so does their 45mm (90mm equiv.) f/2.8 Macro, if I remember correctly (but high-end Canon and Nikon macro lenses have image stabilization, too).
Sony has a 35mm f/1.8 and a 50mm f/1.8 with OSS (Optical SteadyShot) for the APS-C mirrorless system.
One of the many things I love about my Olympus OM-D E-M5 is the incredible in-body image stabilization, which means every single lens gets 3-4 stops worth of stabilization. That's why no Olympus lens has image stabilization - it's built into their bodies. That's a brilliat approach, especially for cameras with an electronic viewfinder - Pentax does that, too, but they have traditional DSLRs, so the image isn't stabilized in the viewfinder. (Not a big deal, it's just reassuring to see the stabilization at work.)

Why Nikon and Canon haven't adopted image stabilization on more of their lenses, is beyond me. The ones that bug me the most are the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses by these two. Such lenses give quite a shallow depth of field when used at f/2.8, and sometimes it isn't desirable, but stopping down may not be an option due to shutter speeds dropping beyond the limit for handheld shooting. Good thing Tamron makes an awesome 24-70mm f/2.8, with VC - so it may push the Big 2 to add optical image stabilization to that lens.

 

[astroNikon]

I want to know why my pancake 35mm lens does not have a tripod mount

 

[D-B-J]

Panasonic's relatively-new 42.5mm (85mm equivalent) f/1.2 has optical image stabilization, and so does their 45mm (90mm equiv.) f/2.8 Macro, if I remember correctly (but high-end Canon and Nikon macro lenses have image stabilization, too).
Sony has a 35mm f/1.8 and a 50mm f/1.8 with OSS (Optical SteadyShot) for the APS-C mirrorless system.
One of the many things I love about my Olympus OM-D E-M5 is the incredible in-body image stabilization, which means every single lens gets 3-4 stops worth of stabilization. That's why no Olympus lens has image stabilization - it's built into their bodies. That's a brilliat approach, especially for cameras with an electronic viewfinder - Pentax does that, too, but they have traditional DSLRs, so the image isn't stabilized in the viewfinder. (Not a big deal, it's just reassuring to see the stabilization at work.)

Why Nikon and Canon haven't adopted image stabilization on more of their lenses, is beyond me. The ones that bug me the most are the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses by these two. Such lenses give quite a shallow depth of field when used at f/2.8, and sometimes it isn't desirable, but stopping down may not be an option due to shutter speeds dropping beyond the limit for handheld shooting. Good thing Tamron makes an awesome 24-70mm f/2.8, with VC - so it may push the Big 2 to add optical image stabilization to that lens.

In all honesty that's the ONE lens where I can't figure out why there's no stabilization. Seems stupid to me. Maybe one day.