Why no Nikkor 17-55 VR?

cryptochrome

Hi,

a couple of months ago I spent quite a few bucks on the Nikko 17-55. I loved it's picture quality. Now, a couple of months later I still love the quality but I also hate having to use a tripod in a lot of situations that I feel I would not need one if I had VR.

Why can we not have the 17-55 with VR while Canon users have the brilliant 17-55 with IS? Why does Nikon always lag behind when it comes to glass?

ziggy53

cryptochrome wrote:

Hi,

a couple of months ago I spent quite a few bucks on the Nikko 17-55. I loved it's picture quality. Now, a couple of months later I still love the quality but I also hate having to use a tripod in a lot of situations that I feel I would not need one if I had VR.

Why can we not have the 17-55 with VR while Canon users have the brilliant 17-55 with IS? Why does Nikon always lag behind when it comes to glass?

The Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 G IF-ED DX really is excellent glass. I do have the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM and I appreciate the Nikon lens for its better build and generally very good to excellent performance, especially at f5.6.

Do understand that IS/VR is not the panacea many believe it is. There is a "settle" time for the stabilization and that can cut in to the responsiveness of the system. I have so far used the lens with flash for events, but if I were shooting without flash I would be tempted to turn off the stabilization for people shots, although stabilization is great for landscapes and such.