«

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:32:17 -0800, C J Campbell
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 2010-02-09 14:21:54 -0800, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:04:46 -0800, C J Campbell
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-09 11:36:55 -0800, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
>>>> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>>>> Who set the Euro pricing??? With the USD at 61% of the UKP that is just
>>>>> crazy.
>>>>
>>>> Japanese and Americans seem to think that Europeans are stupid.
>>>
>>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America
>>> has no VAT.
>>
>> Not by that name, but the concept of adding a tax to the purchase of
>> goods and services is certainly practiced here. Our states are just
>> as tax-hungry as any other government entity.
>
>Yes, but it is not reflected in the price of the lens. As you go on to
>point out very clearly.
>
It's not reflected in the *advertised* price of the lens, or MRSP,
but it will certainly be reflected in the price of the lens when you
buy it.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>
>AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
>Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...on16mm35mm.asp
>US $ 1259.95
>Euro 1199.00
>GBP 1049.99

Why would anyone spend that much to get image stablization on a wide
angle f4 zoom?

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

On 2/9/2010 10:30 AM, Bruce wrote:
> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>
> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...on16mm35mm.asp
> US $ 1259.95
> Euro 1199.00
> GBP 1049.99

Nice. f/4 should be cheaper though I'd have thought.
That's the price the old 17-25 is selling for on ebay.
AF-S & VR probably aren't needed, they could have saved money there.
Nobody in their right mind will buy this for an entry level DX body that
needs AF-S. VR ... we'll see if that's really useful. Maybe.


> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...kon24mmf14.asp
> US $ 2199.95
> Euro 2149.00
> GBP 1949.99

Exotic game of catch up with Canon. This sounds fun but really is very
specialized. Samples from the Canon version:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=317311

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-09 20:59:48 -0800, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:12:40 -0800, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I knew there was going to be a problem when I had lenders lined up
>>> telling me my home, which I bought in 1993 for $125K was valued at over
>>> $400K and I should benefit from some of that equity.
>>
>> How you doing on Homeowner's Insurance? I've been with State Farm for
>> the 28 years I've been in this house (and also with them on my
>> previous homes). State Farm has announced a 15% increase for this
>> next year (starting March 15, for me) and they are petitioning the
>> legislature for considerably larger increases in the future. They are
>> also trying to pull out of Florida because of hurricane losses.
>>
>> I've got bids from four other insurers, and all of them value my home
>> at least double what I could sell it for. The rates are based on the
>> replacement cost and not what the house would bring on the market.
>
>I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
>Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
>which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
>that is a risk which is minimized for me.

How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
for me.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2010-02-09 21:48:54 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) said:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>>> I have been with Allstate since September 1993 for both my Homeowners
>>> Insurance, and that uniquely Californian policy, Earthquake Insurance
>>> which is separate. Fortunately I am not in a flood, or slide zone, so
>>> that is a risk which is minimized for me.
>>
>> How did you justify the earthquake insurance? To me it seems way
>> overpriced for what you get. That 15% deductable was the deal breaker
>> for me.
>
>Once my equity exceeded the deductible, and knowing my comprehensive
>Homeowner's policy would not cover earthquake damage, the annual
>premium was not unreasonable.

$900/year with a $35,000 deductable doesn't seem very reasonable.

>If not I would only have possible assistance to repair or rebuild if
>FEMA came into play with a disaster declaration, and there is no
>consistent guarantee of that happening.
>
>I was lucky with our 6.5 earthquake in December 2003. The epicenter was
>about 20 miles from us.

My house (we're about the same distance in the S. Bay) has stood
without damage for 60 years. I've chosen to ensure that it's
structurally sound.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_San_Simeon_earthquake

Oh, THAT earthquake. I was referring to the Loma Prieta.

>It felt as though a truck had run into the house. With all the shaking
>I couldn't even take the initial move of getting out of the house, as I
>was knocked off my feet. There was only some dry wall crack damage, and
>the stove pipe for my wood stove got shaken loose. Two women in Paso
>Robles weren't so lucky when a building collapsed on them.
>
>So as long as I am living between the Oceanic fault zone in the Santa
>Lucia mountains and the Coastal ranges and the faults they harbor, and
>the San Andreas Fault, 30 miles to the East, I think I can justify the
>cost of Earthquake insurance.

Shrug. Everyone makes their own risk assessment.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:24:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>On Feb 9, 1:30*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>>
>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...on16mm35mm.asp
>> US $ 1259.95 -
>> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
>> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
>>
>> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
>> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...kon24mmf14.asp
>> US $ 2199.95
>> Euro 2149.00 - $2960.00 U.S.
>> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.


Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.

Rich wrote:
> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:24:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 9, 1:30 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>>>>
>>>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
>>>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom
>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...on16mm35mm.asp
>>>> US $ 1259.95 -
>>>> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
>>>> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
>>>>
>>>> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
>>>> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length
>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...kon24mmf14.asp
>>>> US $ 2199.95
>>>> Euro 2149.00 - $2960.00 U.S.
>>>> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.
>>
>> Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
>> and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.
>
> Worst case scenario, a guy in California pays $2386.00 for the 24mm, tax-
> in. The Brit pays $600 more.

This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
maintaining their margins than US box shifters. It wasn't all that long
ago that the rule of thumb for hitech gear was price in USD = price in
GBP. At least they have passed on some of the shift in exchange rates.

The smart Brit has a long weekend holiday in New York and goes shopping...

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:27:15 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:24:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 1:30 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>>>>>
>>>>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
>>>>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom
>>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...on16mm35mm.asp
>>>>> US $ 1259.95 -
>>>>> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
>>>>> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
>>>>> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length
>>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...kon24mmf14.asp
>>>>> US $ 2199.95
>>>>> Euro 2149.00 - $2960.00 U.S.
>>>>> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.
>>>
>>> Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
>>> and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.
>>
>> Worst case scenario, a guy in California pays $2386.00 for the 24mm, tax-
>> in. The Brit pays $600 more.
>
>This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
>maintaining their margins than US box shifters. It wasn't all that long
>ago that the rule of thumb for hitech gear was price in USD = price in
>GBP. At least they have passed on some of the shift in exchange rates.
>
>The smart Brit has a long weekend holiday in New York and goes shopping...
>
>Regards,
>Martin Brown

I fail to understand what is preventing all these whiney-assed pompous
brits from making their own cameras and lenses, then selling them at
inflated prices to all other countries. No, they'd rather sit on their
asses whining about the rest of the world, like it owes them something. Do
the british actually produce *anything* that the rest of the world wants?
That whole country could probably fall off the face of the earth and nobody
would know until months later, when everyone noticed there was a drastic
record-lull in the worldwide level of complaining and whining.

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:27:15 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:24:24 -0800 (PST), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 9, 1:30 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Nikon has announced the following new lenses:
>>>>>
>>>>> AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
>>>>> Full frame (FX) format, image stabilised wide angle zoom
>>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...on16mm35mm.asp
>>>>> US $ 1259.95 -
>>>>> Euro 1199.00 - $1651.00 U.S.
>>>>> GBP 1049.99 - $1647.00 U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> AF-S Nikkor 24mm F/1.4G ED
>>>>> Full frame (FX) format, ultra-fast wide angle fixed focal length
>>>>> lens.http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10...kon24mmf14.asp
>>>>> US $ 2199.95
>>>>> Euro 2149.00 - $2960.00 U.S.
>>>>> GBP 1949.99 - $3058.75 U.S.
>>>
>>> Euro/GBP prices include Value Added Tax (VAT) which varies between 15%
>>> and 25% according to country. US prices do not include taxes.
>>
>> Worst case scenario, a guy in California pays $2386.00 for the 24mm, tax-
>> in. The Brit pays $600 more.
>
>This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
>maintaining their margins than US box shifters. It wasn't all that long
>ago that the rule of thumb for hitech gear was price in USD = price in
>GBP. At least they have passed on some of the shift in exchange rates.


It isn't the same across all photo products - not even across all
Nikon products. Take off the tax, and a D700 body sells for much the
same price in the UK as in the USA. The same applies to the D3X.


>The smart Brit has a long weekend holiday in New York and goes shopping...


My partner claims to be able to pay for the cost of the trip to NY
with the saving on the price of clothes. Sounds good, until you
realise how much you have to spend on clothes to generate that much of
a saving. Still, what are income tax refunds for? ;-)

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:44:13 -0500, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10-02-10 7:27 , Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> This is the golden island problem. UK photo dealers are much better at
>> maintaining their margins than US box shifters.
>
>The US model of high turn ratios (lower WIP/inventory/capital costs)
>depends on box shifters. And for that, with lower unit margins, they
>can make profits way beyond any traditional business in the Nation of
>Shopkeepers.
>
>Regretfully this is what has made Wal*Merde a smashing financial success.

This is a bit of a drift from the original topic: Nikon lens prices.
To the best of my knowledge, Nikon products are priced roughly the
same in all stores - big box or dedicated camera - in this area.

Stores may offer a package deal that makes the price look different,
but the difference is in accessories like a bag, tripod, filters, etc.

An exception is when a retailer offers a "close out" on a particular
model of camera that has been superseded by a new model, but I've only
seen this on P&S Nikons.

Even the on-line retailers seem to roughly in lock-step on Nikon (and
Canon) dslrs. Exceptions might be gray-market products. The major
price differences hinge on the package involved, not the basic camera
and lens(es).

Some on-line retailers do offer discounts, but good luck actually
getting the product at a discount. The "Brooklyn" retailers don't
ship unless over-priced accessories are added to the order.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida