Guy what do you guy think about 17-55mm f2.8g , it is without VR , or nikon purposely make it w/o VR because the f2.8 so we can gain more shutter speed?

Teach me thanks ! thinking to get that

How can you gain more shutter speed without VR? VR is to help you to be able to shoot in slower shutter speed.
The most likely reason for not having the VR is because it's too heavy even without the VR.

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:03 PM

with VR also, u r not gain shutter speed

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 1:56 pmthe only i can say why there's no VR is.. the lens is OLD edi LOL

This post has been edited by razuryza: Feb 17 2011, 01:56 PM

which part of w/o VR can help you gain more shutter speed?
I think because it is announced in 2004 VR is not popular those days. Correct me if I am wrong.
therefore Nikon going to make another one with VR. yay.! again correct me if I am wrong. I am just guessing

Oh no guys, don't look down on 55-200mm, it's a sharp lens for portrait. Ask ask General_Nic

Good question, I also wanna ask, why 24-70mm f/2.8 also no VR 1... Anyhow, do consider to get 24-70, it's a FX lens with Nano coating! Whereas 17-55 is a DX lens without Nano coating. I'm just comparing the worthness in terms of price. (Jeez, I'm repeating these many times already )

The main purpose of VR is so that you can shoot longer shutter speed without having blur your image and also aid parkinson's disease photographer.

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:03 pmYep, no point spending so much on a DX lens, might as well upgrade to FX lens and buy a FX body.

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:03 PM

guys... he said izzit because the big aperture f2.8 can gain more shutter speed...
why all say without VR

hi guys,i intend to get a nikon d7000 this weekend at lowyat. any idea what's the advantage apart of its high ISO? i heard many reviews that the nikon's parts are very expensive rather than others like sony and canon.cos i am currently using sony a33.

17-55mm f2.8 got OOF

Haha maumau , only you can understand me lol !! hahaha

This post has been edited by bbuser91: Feb 17 2011, 02:06 PM

hehe.. some of ppl here reply without read properly lol...

bigger aperture gain longer shutter speed? What the......

For the price, it's actually good, it's light, easy for travel and carry around, sharp too. The main drawback is it's focusing speed, but it depends what you use it for and you can learn to compensate the focusing speed by pre-focusing to shorten the focus time.

The 55-300 VR would be better with metal mount + 9 rounded aperture blades; This one have people selling sligthly below RM1K.

Anyhow, it depends what you use for and your requirements. This is s DX lens, so if you plan to upgrade to FX, you might want to consider the 70-300 VR. But if you just want a lens that is CHEAP, light, easy to carry around, the 55-200 or 55-300 would probably make do. The best is to test/try it out yourself the lens and decide.

for cheap telephoto just get the 70300 VR

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:09 PM

u want more shutter speed.. u gain ISO la HAHAHA

Bigger aperture to gain longer shutter speed makes no sense at all, of course we would naturally think he would meant will a lens w/o VR have any effect on shutter speed.

tats his question.... so juz answer him tat

Really? I even saw people using 35mm 1.8 on their D3s. yeah 35mm 1.8 is a DX lens.

Why he even bother about VR in the first place? moreover emphasized on it. doesn't make sense to emphasized on aperture and asking why there is no VR version.

again bigger aperture doesn't make you achieve a longer shutter speed.
it only makes your get more light.

yes, but the VR is about ability to gain 3-4 f stops which is the shutter speed. You gain ISO from able to shoot longer shutter speed not the other way round.

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:16 PM

last time i went Paris, snap for 3 days about 800+ pics on a single charge

70-300G VR got SWM, 70-300G non-VR is d 1 without motor

55-300 is better than 55-200 in almost everythg, except AF speed slower than 55-200 in low light

false statement
depending on which item, some r more expensive than other brands
Example, Canon 28-300L costs abt rm10k, but Nikon 28-300 costs 3.3k
Nikon 50 1.8 costs rm370-400+, but Canon 50 1.8 costs rm300
Nikon top flash model SB900 rm1600+, Canon top flash model 58EXII rm1700+, Sony top flash model around rm1500
Sony have Carl Zeiss lenses which some cost more than Nikon or Canon equivalent lenses

The 35 1.8G is only bout rm780
the 17-55 cost a bomb that's why might as well buy the 24-70 and upgrade the body.