Possible Duplicate:
Is it true that there are no stabilized prime lenses (and if so, why)?

I've seen that most fixed-focal length lens available for Nikon don't have VR or other image stabilization.

Is there an economic reasoning or technical? I could use the feature when shooting hand-held...

Yes, I did read "Why there is no Canon 50mm IS lens?" but this seems to narrow it to a specific Canon lens.

I also suspect the same goes for Canon, Sony and other lens...

  • 1
    the Nikon site lists 7 primes with VR (85 macro DX, 105 macro FX, 200 f2, 300 f2.8, 400f2.8, 500f4, 600f4) – DHall Dec 2 '12 at 14:14
  • Oh... I haven't noticed them. I just checked on a local store ( www.f64.ro ) ... DOH! I'll have to rewrite my question. – Andrei Rînea Dec 2 '12 at 14:15
  • A prime lens already has a very wide aperture. If Nikon was deciding what lenses to include VR in first, they seem to have the mentality that adding it to a f/4 or f/5.6 lens is more desired in the market then a f/1.4 or f/2 lens having it. That is, if your assumption that they don't add VR to primes is even correct. DHall brought up some examples. – dpollitt Dec 2 '12 at 15:28
  • There is a non-brand-specific question which covers the "why": Is it true that there are no stabilized prime lenses (and if so, why)? – Please Read My Profile Dec 2 '12 at 15:52
  • 2
    Your question is based on false assumptions. No Sony DSLR lens has stabilization, prime or not, because stabilization is built into camera bodies and the same is true of Olympus and Pentax. As a matter, Canon and Nikon still making DSLRs without in-body systems, so they have to choose which lens gets stabilized and not. – Itai Dec 2 '12 at 16:20