Is Scott Kelby joking?

What? A Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 VR?

VR in a wide angle lens? What do you guys think?


This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Anonymous

    It’s as real as Ken Rockwell’s left-handed Nikon.

  • joe

    I can’t see a need for VR with a 14-24 2.8 lens, unless your in a car at night.

  • k-kun

    Not even in a car at night would need VR when you are shooting 14mm…

  • danny

    totally BS

    i can’t see any practical purpose for VR in a ULTRA wide angle lens like the 14-24/2.8, not even for a general public version.

  • Cliff

    agree with above, no use for VR on that lens and wouldn’t buy it. I call BS until I see proof.

  • Zoetmb

    Kelby can be a pretty funny guy, but I hope he’s not picking up Ken’s sense of humor.

  • Freehawk

    He’s joking cause he knew people would freak out. SK is a better self-promoter than KR!

  • Pablov

    Now I wonder: Does Nikon make custom-made lenses ???
    Can someone ask for special version of a lens?
    At how much?
    (I was thinking on Weather Seal for lenses, cheaper than including VR system…)

    If that is possible,… can someone ask for special version of a camera ?

    BTW: left-handed versions of cameras would be fair indeed.

  • Anonymous

    I have a special custom-built 600mm f/4G Nikkor. It’s just like the regular one you can buy in the store, but it has CRC.

  • Call me ignorant, but why is it that we wouldn’t need VR in a wide angle lens?



    • Anonymous

      wider lens has deeper depth of focus…..

      shoot with 200mm lens and and try 18mm

      you will see why……

  • @Zach – people don’t see a need for VR in ultra-wides b/c when you’re that “zoomed out,” camera shake is rarely a problem.

    Personally, I don’t care. I’d still like the ability to shoot at 1 sec at ISO 6400. Gimme VR in every lens!

    @Nikon – IF Scott is telling the truth – spread the love, I’d love to have a 14-24mm VR.

    Oh wait, better yet, how ’bout a 24-70mm VR? Where IS that lens!?

    • Pablov

      24-70 VR !! NICE !! I’d like it too !!

  • anon

    Well known bullshit artist who, when caught lying (or even when simply mistaken) digs in deeper.

  • bigmouth

    those who read SK’s books know that he does have a Ken Rockwell like sense of dry humor – it’s like they are really not geeks but they are so afraid that others don’t view them as geeks so they have to have some geeky jokes to proof it.

    The difference though, is that SK can actually shoot some very good photos. I haven’t been able to see one professional grade photo from Rockwell’s site.

    • d00d

      Um, Pwned!

    • Jesse

      KR has some interesting landscapes.

      • bigmouth

        he does, but they all seem to be somewhat amateurish.

  • Good joke.

  • bull shit

  • Mike

    Scott has zero affiliation with Nikon and is not privy to test models of Nikons. First of all, it makes zero sense since he is affiliated with Adobe, who is trying to get people to give up on NEFs and Capture NX. Second, Kelby is known more as an author, not a photographer. The photography he DOES do is not of the caliber that is expected of a Nikon Pro (Dave Black, Joel Sartore, Joe McNally). He is basically a wedding and portraiture hack. Thirdly, the NDA Nikon makes is not taken lightly. Kelby could lose his shirt in a lawsuit were he to release info regarding new Nikon products in such a casual fashion.

    • Pablov

      “to give up on NEF ” ……. that is impossible unless you switch to Canon or other brand, or Nikon starts writing another RAW format !!

      • rthomas

        That seems to be the direction things are taking – Canon/Adobe/Apple, or Nikon/???/Microsoft. Of course you could just give up on (NEF/RAW/insert-other-proprietary-format-here), and shoot jpeg… I like raw format, it reminds me of working in the darkroom.

        I doubt that Nikon would make a 14-24mm VR lens, even as a one-off custom job. If you’re shooting that wide, camera shake isn’t a problem until below about 1/8th of a second, at which point even VR won’t help that much; you should be using a tripod anyway if you’re shooting in true low-light conditions.

        Instead of the apparently awesome 14-24mm Nikkor, I have the much slower (and cheaper) 12-24mm Sigma, and I find that I can hold it at 1/15th with no problem. I use it to shoot bands up close in small venues, usually at 1600+ ISO. It works fine, no need for VR. Camera shake is definitely more problematic at the telephoto end (and even there, VR is not much good without good handholding technique).

        • Alex

          No no, you guys missed it. The other format is .dng “digital negative” from Adobe. Adobe is trying to get the world to switch over to .dng because in their practical minds it makes perfect sense. It’s a generic “raw” format that could be recorded directly by any camera (Canon, Nikon, Olympus). This way, according to Adobe, in 10 years you would have folders of .dng files archived instead of D200 NEF files, D300 NEF files, D400 NEF files, D500 NEF files, etc. etc. etc. It would provide a smooth transition from new camera to new camera. As it is now, you have a different unique RAW file for each camera which could be problematic for photographers/businesses that archive work for years (decades); compatibility issues could come up with software. So Adobe has been trying to push the big companies to switch to .dng and for Adobe that makes the most sense as future software won’t need to support new RAW files every few months plus past RAW files.

  • kaki


  • Just another guy

    Oh he’s just screwing with everyone who gets their nickers in a twist (like most the other comments on this thread) and was clearly answering the obviously ridiculous question with an equally ridiculous response.

  • Anonymous

    Admin sent me a special backwards version of that I can read using the waist-level finder on my Hasselblad.

    • LOL! And it is all wireless, right – the Internet is so 1990…

  • /me checks his calendar… Hmm. still a long way to go till April 1st.

  • Chris

    What the hell VR could be at 14mm good for?

    • Ernst

      There is no bright line separating focal lengths that benefit from VR and those that do not.

      Camera shake is certainly visible at 14mm.

    • Anonymous

      Posted December 24, 2008 at 7:46 am | Permalink
      What the hell VR could be at 14mm good for?

      is this even english?

  • Shutter-Happy

    I read Joey Baker’s brief explanation to Zach’s question but I still don’t understand why VR is unnecessary for wide angle lens.

    Sorry I am a newbie. =)

  • Anonymous

    I too think this is just good humor.

    In general I also agree that VR on a wide angle has limited value, but I think it may be a bit strong to say it is pointless.

    Clearly movement on wide angle shots is not as big of a problem as it is with longer lenses, but if movement on wide angle shots wasn’t a problem then why would we bother with with tripods, sandbags and mirror lock-up for those landscape shots?

    Since these lenses don’t actually exist (other than in Scott’s world ;)) there may be issues here that I am overlooking or not considering, but not having to lug a tripod all the time could be nice.

    Just my two cents worth.

    But if Nikon was looking for the best market the 24-70 VR would probably sell far better.

  • Optical Engineer

    I design and develop these products for a range of industries – not only for photographers lenses – and have over 35 years experience doing so, and I am always amazed that photographers have still not realized the downside to VR and the other versions of it – IS/OS/SSS etc. In the long term – 5 – 7 years and more, the stabilization function actually causes damage and deterioration to the optics and, consequently, the image quality and – in extreme cases – the ability to capture a decent image at all.

    If I spend £1500 and more on a lens, I expect it to outlast me. This is a case of marketing over substance. (I have a degree in marketing too, so know how marketing permeates EVERYTHING today).

    • bigmouth

      Instead of laying out your credentials, can you please be specific technical reasoning and evidences that VR/IS is damaging existing optics which in turn causing image quality degradation? Some people just like to use “100 years of experience, and i have a degree” to make an argument that has no real meaning to it. Who cares if you are a optical engineer or not? I mean, last time I met someone who claim to be a pharmasutical veteran was actually a clerk working for a local pharmacy for 20 years.

  • Davey

    I’ll take a Nikon 50mm 1.4 VR if they’ll make that! Even with wide angle lenses it would be nice to have VR. There are plenty of low-light situations in which you would need VR when you are shooting 1/8s. Have people never taken pictures in low-light situations? VR would be nice for every lens. It would be nicer if Nikon actually built it into the cameras like other companies do.

  • Carl

    With 14mm and VR you could hand-hold 1sec or more without blurr… 😉

    Good joke from the poster, specially the custom-made note…


  • I’ve got a Canon 10mm fisheye with Nikon VR built in on my Sony A900, Olympus made it for me.


  • d00d

    Hey, maybe he wants to shoot movies on the D90 with it?

  • Hi gang:
    First, sorry to create this whole thing—it was totally a joke. I was wrong about the VR part (my fault—-bad memory), and the guy who posted the comment was kind of being a smart $#% with this “Is this something they custom made for you?” comment, so I thought I’d be a little one back. I didn’t think anyone would take me seriously.

    So sorry for the fuss. Next time, I’ll know better next time.

    Hope you all have a Happy Holiday Season! 🙂

    All my best,

    -Scott Kelby

    • If that’s the real Scott Kelby, then thanks for clearing this up (and for not getting huffy about the abuse farther up the thread.) Happy Holidays to you too!

    • Zoetmb

      Actually, Scott (assuming it’s really you), I think you should continue to be just as smart ass as you like when people ask silly questions.

      And I’m anxiously awaiting the release of “Hot Shoe Diaries”.

    • PJS

      KR sends his Christmas wishes. To one; for one.

      • Thanks for the clarification Scott Kelby (if this is really you)!
        Happy Holidays!

  • george

    no way…… and i mean no way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    nikon proved to be inconvienence to a lot of real pros….. = $$$$$$$$$$$
    and sudenly care for a computer freak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    think about??????????????????????????????????
    and which one that have some basic photographic kwnoledge need vr for wide angle 2.8 lens ??????????????????

  • Leo

    I love VR. I’m a shaker. VR can make anything better.

  • Brandon

    Thnx for clearing this up Scott, you’re a good man to even notice something like this thread during this time of year. Stop working for once!

    My own two cents… sure VR on a 14-24 wouldn’t be as effective, but people forget that we pay a huge premium for a f/2.8 lens, so even if it did offer only a 1-stop advantage, I would be all for it. Even more so on the 24 end of it, and more still on a 50. Personally, I think a 28mm 1.4 with VR would be the ultimate night-shot lens, and I would pay quite a bit for it. But I doubt it would happen.

  • Erez

    He’s full BS.
    There isn’t any such lens, nor will be one.

  • Stereohans

    A VR is useful i low light but normally doesn’t improve the optical quality of a lens. There were good reasons for Nikon NOT to include VR in their pro line 24-70 and 14-24 regarding they had high ISO bodies in line. With VR it is impossible to centrate a lens as well due to those movable parts in the optical system. If you compare the newer Canon 2,8/70-200 IS against the older version without stabilization, sharpness and contrast (using a tripod to exclude inluences of camera or hand shake) of the lens without VR/IS are significantly better. After all I like stabilized lenses – but not in terms of maximum IQ.

    Regards, Hans

    • Gotta agree with this. VR adds a lot of utility to a lens, especially a long one, but it may force compromises in image quality. In addition to the problem with keeping the elements centered, there are others; a couple that occur to me offhand are:

      — Not every lens design lends itself to VR (which requires a small, light group near the center that can be moved to stabilize the image), so deciding to make a VR lens may require a less-than-ideal optical design.
      — VR generally needs some extra refractive elements, which means lower contrast, higher flare potential and more difficult assembly; not a major factor when you’re talking about a big zoom that already has a lot of elements, but potentially a big issue in, say, a 50/1.4.

      Lens designers are always having to decide on compromises between ultimate image quality and utility (small size, low weight, wide zoom range, low cost, etc.) and VR is just another factor they have to consider. When making a very expensive lens designed for serious users (who are more likely than most to use a tripod when necessary) it may make sense for them to lean toward higher image quality rather than the greater utility of VR.

      Of course what we all want is a small, light, cheap lens with a wide zoom range, a large maximum aperture, a very close minimum focusing distance, great flare resistance, the convenience of VR, and sensational optical performance… but hey, no free lunch!

  • Scott kids around.
    It’s a joke.

  • Anyone who shoots architectural interiors knows the value of a big solid tripod with the superwides we use. A lens as short as 14mm DOES suffer from camera movement, though it may not be as obvious as it is with a long lens.

    Hand-holding in available darkness, any additional stability is an asset, no matter the shortness of focal length. VR II in a lens means that I am shooting at ISO3200 or ISO6400 instead of ISO25,600, meaning better image quality.

  • Theodore P.

    NR – can you update the main post or take it down now?

  • Back to top