• Flashlightpanorama_fish_eye
    137 posts
  • CrashpcCZpanorama_fish_eye
    360 posts
    2 years ago

    I have seen that.
    Dangit, it's shame this is for DX. Certainly would buy one immediately for FX. What a near miss.

  • SrMipanorama_fish_eye
    457 posts
    2 years ago

    It is a shame that it has no VR.

  • CrashpcCZpanorama_fish_eye
    360 posts
    2 years ago

    Is it even "possible", "feasible" or "reasonable request" for such lens? Just asking, I don't know what would be the size difference with VR. Maybe DX bodies could get VR IBIS too, to solve this issue.

  • SrMipanorama_fish_eye
    457 posts
    2 years ago

    Maybe that lens was supposed to be launched with a DX body with IBIS.

    Sony used to launch small DX primes with VR while their cameras did not have IBIS.

  • Foskitopanorama_fish_eye
    284 posts
    2 years ago
  • xlucinepanorama_fish_eye
    39 posts
    2 years ago
  • Foskitopanorama_fish_eye
    284 posts
    2 years ago

    And how come is obsolete, and suddenly stop working because of this release?

  • xlucinepanorama_fish_eye
    39 posts
    2 years ago

    There is a newer option that is smaller, lighter, and a stop and a half brighter - it's an upgrade over the 28mm in every way.

  • Foskitopanorama_fish_eye
    284 posts
    2 years ago

    Sure. There is a one-year newer SUV than mine. But mine still works just fine!

  • JimStirlingpanorama_fish_eye
    196 posts
    2 years ago

    I wish Nikon would release a DX body with IBIS

  • Mackiesbackpanorama_fish_eye
    243 posts
    2 years ago

    Rhetorical questions: Do we need them?

  • CRadpanorama_fish_eye
    7 posts
    2 years ago

    Not a DX user but IMO, it's small, it's light, it's a moderate focal length and people want it for the f/1.7 aperture to get narrower DOF. Given the use case, maybe VR isn't as necessary as you might first think.