toxdoc42

In reading the discussion regarding vibration controls I was confused by the discussion. I bought a Nikon D3400 kit which included 2 zoom lenses. After the discussion here, I happened to look at the 2 lenses and found that the shorter one, 18-55 mm included VR but the longer one 70-300mm did not. I was curious about this and contacted Nikon to see if that was the way they offered the kit. Nikon then responded to me by explaining that the VR version of that lens was $50 more than the non-VR and the package was intended to be as inexpensive as possible, and that my local store could have sold me the VR lens for $50 more. The store never mentioned that to me. Further, in searching the internet, I find no one offering the VR version of that lens for $50 more. Anyone know if Nikon was just trying to place the blame on the local store?

So far, only once did I have difficulty with the blurring on the longer zoom, it was dusk and I grabbed the camera to shoot a photo of a hawk and didn't have my monopod or tripod with me. I could have used auto ISO to shoot faster, but I prefer shooting at low ISO for better resolution, I am a hold over from film in which I preferred lower ASA for better quality, and find that although grain at higher ASA on film didn't ever bother me, noise at high ISOs does. I now carry a monopod with me to use with the longer lens.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

I wouldn't be too quick to put the blame on Nikon. There's a good possibility that the stores are slow to mention the $50 option because they make more profit off of the non-VR lens. They could also assume that people buying that bundle just want the lowest price. I doubt Nikon cares which of their lenses they sell you.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

This I why I really like Pentax's in-body VR. Any lens I use has VR.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Quoting "Further, in searching the internet, I find no one offering the VR version of that lens for $50 more."

I found this to be a curious remark. Not clear whether you found other vendors only offering the VR lens at prices higher than $50 more, or at prices lower than $50 more or could not find vendors selling the lens at all.

whitewolfowner

This another example of Nikon not making the customers options and understanding of what they are buying. I'll never forget when before I bought my first DSLR, a D80, I called Nikon and asked if they were getting ready to replace the D80 with a new model. I was nothing in the pipe line, should be at least 6 months to a year. So I went out and bought the D80 and sure enough, five weeks later, the D90 is announced. Some of you may wonder why I'm ill on Nikon and this is one of the many reasons why.

BebuLamar

It is your fault. You should know what kind of things you're buying.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Good grief! What you ran into there was good business and any other mfg would said the same. Not only that but you talked to a customer service person who would not have known what was coming or even if they did ,they would have been told to keep that information secret. Any one in business wants to clear out the old inventory as much as possible before introducing a new product. They have after all invested money in the older product too. Companies loose money, people loose jobs!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It can be confusing. There is a version with VR, selling for $396, and there is a non-VR version selling for $346. So, yes, there is a $50 difference. As the Nikon man said, they wanted to package a camera and two lenses for a low price. Maybe people wouldn't buy the package if it were $50 higher. There is also an FX version of a 70-300mm

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1275035-REG/nikon_20061_af_p_dx_nikkor_70_300mm.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1275036-REG/nikon_20062_afp_dx_nikkor_70_300mm.html/prm/alsVwDtl

You can always sell the 70-300mm on ebay - or even trade it in on the VR version. The salesman was right not to try to "upgrade" you to the VR lens because that would have looked like bait and switch. What would he have done with the lens you didn't want? That was packed as a package. He would have to sell it without a box.

All in all, you got a good deal with the body and lenses.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Watch this, and see what Ira Block says about high ISOs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrQJLyOub3A

whitewolfowner

So in other words, you endorse lying all in the name of padding your pocket?

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

Does not seem like it is either Nikon or the sellers fault as Nikon told you they wanted to keep the cost down and the seller may not have offered you the other lens possibly because they may not have had it in stock or the person who sold it to you did not know about it. Maybe call the store and see if they can upgrade you for the extra cost.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

You are more than welcome to twist what I said to fit your bias. Have at it.

whitewolfowner

Didn't twist a thing, just followed your logic. Must be some flaws in it if you believe or think differently.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Right, I explained, probably too briefly for you to understand, that in business new product information is withheld until inventories have been lowered on the previous model. You chose to interpret that as lying, then you chose to accuse me of condoning lying to pad my pocket.
You have no idea if the person you spoke to at Nikon knew about the new product but choose to assume they did and thereby accused them of lying. I guess you are convinced that the whole world is against you and nobody is to be trusted. Have fun with that.

whitewolfowner

Certainly, just because I don't like to be lied to I hate the world. WOW, talk about solid, logical thinking!