reddirt14

Any recommendations on a good place to buy (price and satisfaction) a Nikon 17-55? Any chance Nikon will role out another lens special, or is that a summer-time thing?

anrkitec

Your local independantly owned pro shop.

Failing that B&H or Adorama.

Sure there is a chance but only Nikon knows if and when.

Your questions suggest that you are not in a big rush to get this lens. If this is the case then I would wait at least for Photokina as the 17-55 is long overdue for either an update [VR-II, Nano coating, etc] or an outright replacement.

reddirt14

I'd love to support my local shops but our State doesn't support shopping local. In fact we charge a premium, in excess of 10%, to shop local. We are highly encouraged (in this case to the tune of over $100 on the purchase) to shop out of state. We used to be run by several highly deranged governors. You may see them from time to to time with Mr. Trump on what of his shows. It's quite the joke of states, but none the less, that's the environment I live.

I will probably wait for the next big Photo show as you mentioned - on the wild chance of some surprise release. I'm not so sure that Nikon is a big believer in the VR/IS technology on short lenses like the 17-55. Honestly, I'd consider it a fairly stable lens. Just wondering when the normal discount/rebate deals are. I thing they are in the spring, but couldn't remember.

anrkitec

DX:
Nikkor 16-85 VR-II
Nikkor 18-200 VR-I/II
Nikkor 18-55 VR-I
Nikkor 18-105 VR-II
Nikkor 24-120 VR-I

FX:
Nikkor 16-35 VR-II

reddirt14

I meant in Pro glass. They'll put anything on the lower in glass to sell it. Hence the Mega Pixel rush, when really we need a few less mega pixels and less noise. But the 16-35 is a nicer lens. Maybe they would make that upgrade on the 17-55...Pro glass does get caught up in the gimmicks too. Don't get me wrong, I think VR/IS is a neat idea and important on the 70+ glass. I just don't see it as too critical for a the short glass when you can shoot at F2.8. It's not exactly a substitution for speed, because I admit speed is only part of the full equation, but if my lens was shooting F4+ an by the nature of the distance I'm trying to shoot at, some "shake" was to occur, then it's a good tool. Albeit a nice tripod will do the job too...

anrkitec

The value in VR is not just in increasing low-light performance.

The 17-55 is a rather large and heavy - front heavy in particular - lens.

VR could in fact be a very beneficial feature for this lens in terms of reducing if not eliminating camera shake induced image blur even in bright light, even wide open.

Still, I have absolutely no idea if this lens will be replaced or updated but if one can wait then there really is no downside to seeing what Photokina has to offer, be it new lenses or rebates on existing ones.

reddirt14

I guess when I've got fast glass the only time I'd generally be interested in VR is in low light situations where I need to keep that shutter open longer. And with fast glass, I'd be tempted to try those shots. But a tripod works quite well if not better. And if I'm carrying that glass a small tripod isn't much more to add...not to mention I can consider longer exposures.

Now on the "consumer" glass, if I'm pushed out to a high F Stop, I need VR more because I don't have sufficient light to operate the shutter quick enough and eliminate shake etc. It's nice, but I'm not absolutely sold on the need for it in the short pro glass. I'll probably wait for the next show, just to see. Have never heard a rumor about that lens being replaced though.

SeAAttle

I have had the 16-35 for a few weeks and really like it. Generally just leave VR on, although I have read that it's not necessary or even desirable when shooting at 1/1000 or faster. Something about the VR sampling every 2 msec.

BTW, can someone give a simple explanation of the difference between VRI and VRII? I bought a 70-200 f/2.8 before VRII came along. Very happy with it but just wondering about the benefit of VRII.

anrkitec

Basically the floating element in the VR-II models have greater travel and the electro-magnets and gyroscopic sensors are, well, more sensitive.

The differences make the effect more precise, particularly in 'active' mode and add another one to two stops over the VR-I models.

SeAAttle

Thanks. I assumed it was something like that, although I read somewhere that it had nothing to do with VR (something about less softening at the corners ??). That made no sense whatsoever.

I use active mode only very occasionally but have gotten a few good shots. The 16-35 does not have active mode. Any idea why? Not enough room or added weight? It's fairly heavy as is.

anrkitec

It has something to do with 'intended uses', that is that 'active' mode, says Nikon, is intended largely for applications like shooting from a moving vehicle [African safari, etc.].

'Normal' mode assumes that large movements by the camera/lens are from the photographer recomposing the image, 'active' mode assumes large movements are because of an unstable platform.

Because of their wider field of view wide angle lens are more often moved around significantly in order to frame and recompose, thus 'active' mode would not only be off less utility but also likely detrimental.

SJUAMMF

Active mode is VR only in the vertical direction. Horizontal VR is turned off.

SeAAttle

Thanks. The 'intended use' makes sense.

Interesting. What is gained by having horizontal turned off?

SJUAMMF

I think the panning and moving objects confuses the VR controller logic. Since most moving object in our terrestrial world moves horizontally, "active" is then referred as being horizontal motion. I wonder what happens to vertical motion or when a camera is in portrait orientation.

Personally I am amazed at how fast these things work. But I guess even milli-second is 100 times faster than 1/10th of a second.