On paper it sounds very nice indeed. It's nice to see Nikon stepping outside the conventional and adding IS (sorry, VR) to a lens class that has never had it before. It's a bit weird having it cut out at close focusing distances though, sort of defeats a lot of the point. Doubtless there is a white paper describing the reasoning behind it somewhere.
Interesting to see that, in a sense, the big two have done the same thing just now: introduce IS/VR to a lens type that has traditionally never had it and, say some, cannot benefit from it. The Nikon 105 macro VR and the Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS in the same week. Are we heading for a world where all lenses except the cheapest ones have IS/VR? Or is this Canon and Nikon racing to get IS/VR in as many lenses as possible before Sony debut a Minolta-based DSLR with IS in-body?
|