Many people are selling their 24-120mm VR lens recently in the buy and sell forums. Is the VR over-hype? Otherwise, why many people dumping their VR lens?
Is VR an over-hype?
- Thread starter sales_freak
- Start date
- Status
A lot of people selling it because they are not into photography, they are into photography equipment. So when a few people start selling it off, the rest will follow suit. :bsmilie:
See the corresponding thread in the Canon forum here about Image Stabilisation technology. Bottom line: VR/IS is probably the most important lens innovation since autofocus, and is the reason why many Nikon pros switched to the Canon system a few years ago (before Nikon came out with its own line of VR lenses) - as in this ongoing discussion in Fred Miranda's forums.
Some (like me, although I haven't started to think of selling mine yet) like the 24-120vr, but are more attracted to sigma's new 18-125 DC which gives you a wider wide angle and it's DC, so you don't have the FOV crop. Also, it's a little odd because D70 owners will have the kit 18-70 and either a 70-300(G/D) or 80-200D or 70-200VR, the 24-120 has a good range, VR works well, it's sharp, focuses fast, but it doesn't have a very wide wide angle and the 80-200 gives you only 80mm more.
dementate said:
I don't think DC means that there is no FOV crop. DC is just Sigma's version of Nikon's DX - it is designed for APS sized sensors (producing a smaller image circle), thus allowing the designers to make it smaller and lighter than they would need to if it was full frame. There will be FOV crop of the stated zoom range of 18-125mm.
Sorry for the OT
24-120mm lens weight 575g while the 70-200mmf2.8G weighted 1430g, clearly the VR function in 70-200mm will be more useful .... :bsmilie:
gooseberry said:I don't think DC means that there is no FOV crop. DC is just Sigma's version of Nikon's DX - it is designed for APS sized sensors (producing a smaller image circle), thus allowing the designers to make it smaller and lighter than they would need to if it was full frame. There will be FOV crop of the stated zoom range of 18-125mm.
Sorry for the OT
argh, really? :bigeyes: someone explained DX and DC to me as the image circle, while being smaller, contained the same information as the image circle of a regular 35mm lens. oh well, that explains why a lot of people don't care much for DX lenses.
sales_freak said:
I would say it good to have, but not a must to have. With the era of DSLR, there are work around with lens without VR. You can change the ISO setting on your camera body so that you will have higher shutter speed.
scanner said:I would say it good to have, but not a must to have. With the era of DSLR, there are work around with lens without VR. You can change the ISO setting on your camera body so that you will have higher shutter speed.
Monopod is a good and cheap solution too. Of course the disadvantages are there .... but still manageable as it's not as big/difficult to work as a tripod.
I usually work with my 24-120mm due to it's weight and range thought I've the 28-70mmF2.8. The VR technology work quite well and image quality is good enough to produce a decent size. I must said that it a good lense for it's price. Surprised that some are giving it up.
Dun quite agree with you mooey,MooEy said:
The 24-120VR works pretty well on film bodies and digital bodies as well. I'd think of the 24-120VR as a godsent from Nikon, after FLM, it becomes a natural 36-180 FOV. (Ok before I get flamed, I've used it on the F80 and I pretty much like the range.)
Scanner is right in pushing ISO up, but similarly I would rather activate VR, slower my shutter and capture ambient with less noise at lower ISOs.
Digital is already a beauty for us to push and pull without loading and unloading CFs. VR is not overhyped by it's usage, it's over-hyped by the cost
Sorry OT abit, do users of 24-120 have a feeling that the VR is slow to stabilised resulting in not so sharp pictures and thus better off without the VR ?.
What I understood much earlier was that the 24-120 VR optical performance is not quite up to par even after the initial problem. Can any user vertify this? Could this be the reason why others are selling?
Its the main reason why I'm holding back as I need to get a "general purpose" lens eversince I've sold my Tamron 24-135 which was very good too.
VR works very well on the 70-200 and you guys are dead on that its more suited on longer lens.
Its the main reason why I'm holding back as I need to get a "general purpose" lens eversince I've sold my Tamron 24-135 which was very good too.
VR works very well on the 70-200 and you guys are dead on that its more suited on longer lens.
Jay said:
i agree with you on this. the tamron 24-135 sp af gives better sharpness and colours. i sold mine off last year for the 24-120vr, but sort of regretted after a few months of VR-ing with this "overhyped" lens.
- Status
Similar threads
