Originally Posted by xzjia
Sure, but what's it going to cost you the other way around? You're paying for VR/IS for every VR/IS lens you purchase, instead of paying only once for the body and reap the benefit even with budget lens. Buck-for-buck wise the value can't be disputed.
Boring old reasoning. Seeing as Pentax doesn't have a lens line up that's directly comparable to Nikon's, who's to say that you aren't paying for optical quality instead?
Also, Nikon does have cheap lenses with VR. The 18-55 and 55-200. Then there is the 16-85 and 70-300. The first two are budget, the second two are a step above them.. and ALL of them have been proven to be close to flawless when it comes to bang for buck optical quality. To some extent, the 18-200 also comes in, though it's convenience far outweighs it's IQ performance.
|Besides the fact that you can't get stablized version of fast prime lens in the wide-to-normal range (50mm and under).
And in Pentax's case you don't get as good an stabilization system in the telephotos, where it was originally DESIGNED for seeing as shake is most obvious and irritating in the telephoto range. Ever wondered why Canon or Nikon haven't introduced stabilization in fast wide primes anyway? If you ask me, I'd rather have good stabilization in an area that really needs it, than not so good stabilization in an area that doesn't really need it.
IMO the K100 and K10 are great cameras, but because of the value they offer at their price points as a whole, not specifically the stabilization. If stabilization is a main requirement, I'd recommend a D40 or D80 + 18-55 VR any day.