Page 1 of 1
To VR or not to VR, that is the question.
Posted:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:16 pmby phillipb
There's a cheap 24-120 on ebay, but is not a VR, can anyone tell me if the two lenses are optically the same? I know the benefits of VR but was just wondering if the quality is the same.
Posted:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:23 pmby sirhc55
Personally I would go with Birdie on this - the VR is not expensive and I think you would regret not getting the VR IMO
Chris
Posted:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:41 pmby gstark
I'm with Chris on this one, Phillip.
How much do you think you'll save when the VR is so cheap ex-Poon?
Posted:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:45 pmby phillipb
With a day to go it's $256 if it stays under $300 it would be a good buy.
Posted:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:47 pmby birddog114
phillipb wrote:With a day to go it's $256 if it stays under $300 it would be a good buy.
phillipb
Think about it twice! it's not!
Posted:
Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:52 pmby phillipb
Yeah, you're right, it's a used lens and the VR is worth at least $300 so back to dreaming for me.
Posted:
Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:15 pmby phillipb
In case you're curious, that used lens ended up selling for $437.50 + P&H, so around $450 al up. Really puts Birddog's price in perspective doesn't it!
Posted:
Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:51 amby nodabs
needing VR also depends on what you shoot it doesn't do sports and action shooters much good so you need to think about what your going to be using the lense for
Posted:
Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:54 amby birddog114
That's the used lens 24-120/ the new lens 24-120VR is just another $210.00 extra, why should we settle for an used unit and old techno.