Why is 'in-lens' VR superior to 'in-camera' VR?

[wakaowalao]

Lets look at street price then:

Sony SAL 70200G: $2999 (e-quote)
NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II : $3030(CS price guide)
EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM : $3350 (CS price guide)

still can save $30 for a taxi ride home :bsmilie: Sony price are more quite competitive.

Not trying to prove anything, just wanna clear some misconception that Sony lens (not inclusive of Zeiss) are more expensive.

Saving ONLY $30 (or none based on latest price) for:
- A relabeled and restyled variant of the old Minolta lens
- does not even feature any seals???

I wouldn't mind taking bus ride home.

 

[wakaowalao]

The REAL reason: they can sell more types of lenses and charge you more for the VR lenses.

Consumer VR lenses does not necessary cost more. See Nikon/Canon kit lens pricing (street not RRP).

 

[kriegsketten]

Saving ONLY $30 (or none based on latest price) for:
- A relabeled and restyled variant of the old Minolta lens
- does not even feature any seals???

I wouldn't mind taking bus ride home.

*gulp*.... that's a complete set of 6-inch nails into the coffin already... Really? An old Minolta lens?...

 

[chiangkxv]

Urm it means VR option is just 30 bucks more than without? Man, that's a bargain already! Just checked, CS price for Sony's unit is 3050 on Feb 2011...

Sorry, I can't hep it but for an approx. 3-grand lens, Sony saved you just $30 by not including a complex VR/IS system is hardly any where being competitive... To be fair, one should just compare AF-S 80-200mm with Sony's 70200G... both without in-lens VR systems implemented. I don't know what's Canon's Equivalent, but I'm sure there has to be one EF-70-200mm version (without the IS) of the same class?

The figure is an e-quote. The price will most probably be lower if you head down to shop and bargain and offer to pay by cash.

The reason for using VR/IS lens as comparable is to compare the 70-200 2.8 focal length with stabilization option since we are trying to study the hypothesis that in camera stablisation reduce cost of lens.

The comparison will never end if we really want to carry on. shall we compare minolta 70-210 f4 to canon's 70-200 f4?

 

[kriegsketten]

Of course, using AF-S 80-200mm was not a thoroughly fair comparison, I brought it up because it is a body without VR as there wasn't any Nikkor 70-200mm without one. The only really comparison would be 70200G versus Canon's AF 70-200L USM. Wanna make a guess what the price differences might be? So going back to the hypothesis, shouldn't non-optically stabilized lenses of the same focal length class be way cheaper? If that was Sony's initial intention and that is save their users a big bundle? Seriously, I wouldn't even think $200 difference is a significant cost saving measure considering that we're talking about a 3K class of lenses here.

Okay, first time I've heard that photography equipment can be that easily bargained. If I take that to be true, how much more - $100 or $200 cheaper? To qualify for that, I'm sure you have to be one of their biggest customer, not just a simple walk-in. Secondly, with serviceable local warranty or a grey lens? What if a person doesn't know how to bargain? So, 2999 is the effective price isn't it? Remember than 3030 is the Nikkor's price without even the need to bargain...

Anyway, I really don't see how the 70200G is that competitively priced.

 

[kriegsketten]

Using Canon's 70-200mm as a rough gauge... The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non IS) is under 2K (maybe cheaper if you look around). And the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM IS (first gen) is just under 3K or thereabouts... Buyers who think they can live without IS can opt for the cheaper non IS version. That's a whopping 1K saving for a lens without Optical Stabilisation. Of course, I'm not saying 1K is a good gauge of a significant figure. Heck, if you can get $600 off, it would have been been significant enough for some! Frankly, Nikkor's VRII is already a big jump from the first generation of 70-200 (VRI) for about 1K difference - I'm sure some already make a big hoo-hah about it. Still, it is in line against Canon's IS II (some $200 cheaper perhaps), but both with second gen OS already installed, who can argue with latest technology?

 

[daredevil123]

Of course, using AF-S 80-200mm was not a thoroughly fair comparison, I brought it up because it is a body without VR as there wasn't any Nikkor 70-200mm without one. The only really comparison would be 70200G versus Canon's AF 70-200L USM. Wanna make a guess what the price differences might be? So going back to the hypothesis, shouldn't non-optically stabilized lenses of the same focal length class be way cheaper? If that was Sony's initial intention and that is save their users a big bundle? Seriously, I wouldn't even think $200 difference is a significant cost saving measure considering that we're talking about a 3K class of lenses here.

Okay, first time I've heard that photography equipment can be that easily bargained. If I take that to be true, how much more - $100 or $200 cheaper? To qualify for that, I'm sure you have to be one of their biggest customer, not just a simple walk-in. Secondly, with serviceable local warranty or a grey lens? What if a person doesn't know how to bargain? So, 2999 is the effective price isn't it? Remember than 3030 is the Nikkor's price without even the need to bargain...

Anyway, I really don't see how the 70200G is that competitively priced.

Hmmm... in the end... after looking at some prices lists and quotes, my opinion is that consumer grade lenses like 18-250, Sony has an edge in pricing but not by too much. But the higher end stuff, pricing pretty much around the same or slightly more expensive with the CZ label.

For pentax, I do not even know how to compare, by virtue of the fact that their lens offerings are so different in nature (in focal lengths and max apertures). But looking the telezoom lenses like 50-135mm/2.8, it is basically the Tokina design with a focus motor built in. And it retails for around 1.5k. A lot higher than the Tokina 50-135 itself, and around the same as a Sigma 50-150/2.6 OS. The FA primes, goodness, looks really expensive for F1.8s and F1.9s. No doubt their reputation for IQ is excellent. Some of the lens prices shocked me, honestly, for a system that is purely on APS-C. Their camera bodies are very cheap though. I guess it is just how they lay out their strategy.

So the concept of saving money on non IS/VR lenses is quite negligible actually.

 

[chiangkxv]

Of course, using AF-S 80-200mm was not a thoroughly fair comparison, I brought it up because it is a body without VR as there wasn't any Nikkor 70-200mm without one. The only really comparison would be 70200G versus Canon's AF 70-200L USM. Wanna make a guess what the price differences might be? So going back to the hypothesis, shouldn't non-optically stabilized lenses of the same focal length class be way cheaper? If that was Sony's initial intention and that is save their users a big bundle? Seriously, I wouldn't even think $200 difference is a significant cost saving measure considering that we're talking about a 3K class of lenses here.

Okay, first time I've heard that photography equipment can be that easily bargained. If I take that to be true, how much more - $100 or $200 cheaper? To qualify for that, I'm sure you have to be one of their biggest customer, not just a simple walk-in. Secondly, with serviceable local warranty or a grey lens? What if a person doesn't know how to bargain? So, 2999 is the effective price isn't it? Remember than 3030 is the Nikkor's price without even the need to bargain...

Anyway, I really don't see how the 70200G is that competitively priced.

My point to highlight that sony lenses are not more expensive than other brand's offering. Not to prove that sony lens are cheaper.

And a point to ponder. Since you mention lens w/o VR should be priced lower, then shouldn't camera without build in stabilization be way cheaper than those that comes with it too?

Each brand price their product differently and it won't be conclusive even we continue debating.

 

[kriegsketten]

My point to highlight that sony lenses are not more expensive than other brand's offering. Not to prove that sony lens are cheaper.

And a point to ponder. Since you mention lens w/o VR should be priced lower, then shouldn't camera without build in stabilization be way cheaper than those that comes with it too?

Each brand price their product differently and it won't be conclusive even we continue debating.

I thought we're on the topic of cost saving being passed to consumers, not price competitiveness.

Sorry, I've handled all 3 brands of DSLRs before (and pretty recently too)... And I can tell you why you say Sony's costs cheaper (not by a big margin really)...but it is too sensitive to bring it up here, REALLY!...

 

[daredevil123]

My point to highlight that sony lenses are not more expensive than other brand's offering. Not to prove that sony lens are cheaper.

And a point to ponder. Since you mention lens w/o VR should be priced lower, then shouldn't camera without build in stabilization be way cheaper than those that comes with it too?

Each brand price their product differently and it won't be conclusive even we continue debating.

Oh ok. So in body IS do not make lenses cheaper and pass that savings to customers. And the "savings" from not putting in IS into lenses ultimately goes to become extra profit for the manufacturer. Oh ok. Very different viewpoint from what I am hearing from other supporters of the alpha system though.