| Joined: | Wed Apr 11th, 2012 |
| Location: | Denham, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
However they may be more robust due to the VR (IS?) being in the body rather than the lens, in theory they should be a little saving because you are only buying one image stabilising unit rather than one for each lens.Robert, I have said this before but it bears repeating. There is no evidence that Nikon has, or will be, dropping in-lens VR. With the possible exception of the 24-70 f4 Nikon don't make a VR version of any of the lenses currently announced.
There isn't a 24-70 f4 in F mount but there is a 24-70 f2.8 VR.
There is a 24-70 f2.8 on the road map, will it have VR? I expect so. I fully expect the 70-200 f2.8 to be a VR lens and I also expect further VR lenses to be introduced later.
Correcting Pitch and Yaw vibration is easier to accomplish with in-lens systems. If I were designing a new camera system and had the option of five axis stabilisation I wouldn't cripple it by removing the Pitch and Yaw elements from future lenses.