Dpreview decries the high cost of in-lens I.S.

In article
,
RichA wrote:

Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

radically inflate?

nikon 55-200, $179.95
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...56_55_200mm_f_
4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

nikon 55-200 vr, $224.95 (and it's a better lens, aside from the vr)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...66_55_200mm_f_
4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

a whopping $45 difference.

In article
,
RichA wrote:

Yeah, pick the cheapo kit lens as the example. It's still 25% more
expensive ($45 for $1.25 worth of extra electronics) and I.S. comes in
other camera bodies so that you can use it on any lens.

bodies come and go, lenses last, and lenses with stabilization can be
used with any body.

Canon's
70-200mm f4.0 without I.S. is $630, with I.S. it's $1200!! $580 for
the I.S.??!

the olympus 35-100 f/2 (equivalent to 70-200), no stabilization
(because it's in the body) is $2050:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...261012_35_100m
m_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html

the sony 70-200 f/2.8, no stabilization (because it's in the body) is
$1800:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...70200G_SAL_702
00G_Zoom_AF_70_200mm.html

and the canon 70-200 f/2.8 *with* stabilization is $1800 (with a rebate
through january):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...42A002_70_200m
m_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html

what a deal!

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article
,
RichA wrote:

Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

radically inflate?

nikon 55-200, $179.95
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...56_55_200mm_f_
4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

nikon 55-200 vr, $224.95 (and it's a better lens, aside from the vr)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...66_55_200mm_f_
4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

a whopping $45 difference.

Likewise the 18-55 vs. the 18-55 VR, a small difference in price (I think
about zero difference if you buy either lens with body in a kit) and the VR
is a more complex design which is reported to be even better than the
already excellent non-VR model. I don't see any "radical inflation" of price
here.

"RichA" wrote in message
...


nospam wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

Note the conclusion "con." In-lens offers some advantages, but Canon
and Nikon use it to radically inflate the price of lenses. So much so
in some cases that you can buy another very good lens wit the
difference the in-body I.S. makes the lens cost.

radically inflate?

nikon 55-200, $179.95
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...56_55_200mm_f_
4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

nikon 55-200 vr, $224.95 (and it's a better lens, aside from the vr)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...66_55_200mm_f_
4_5_6G_ED_AF_S.html

a whopping $45 difference.

Yeah, pick the cheapo kit lens as the example. It's still 25% more
expensive ($45 for $1.25 worth of extra electronics)

It takes more than "$1.25 worth of extra electronics" to accomplish the VR.
And the optical design is entirely different. The 55-200 VR is a 15-element
internal focusing lens; the original 55-200 is a 13-element lens without IF.