Nikon's new lenses = heart stopping prices

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by RichA, Aug 29, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Aug 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yep! And I bet Nikon is going to have a hard time keeping any of them in
    stock. I wanted Nikon to put out 400mm+ lenses with VR, and they answered
    my call. Too bad the sticker shock turned me off. Nikon's pricing
    structure is only going to send more people over to Canon. It looks like my
    decision to order the 500/4L IS is a smart decision after all. Thank you
    Nikon for making this decision easy for me.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Aug 29, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Siggy Guest

    Each high quality lens takes in excess of 6 weeks to manufacture
    starting from the optical glass block cutting stage alone. This
    according to 'How is it made?' (or something like that) program on the
    Discovery Channel I watched last night! lol

    Strange but true.

    ps. Anyone know how they make optical glass to start with? :-s
    Siggy, Aug 29, 2007
  4. RichA

    Siggy Guest

    Siggy wrote:
    Damn, I knew the moment I asked that Google would bloody find it. Glass.htm

    Like TV was first received by our forebears, it'll (Google that is) be
    the death of conversation as we know it! lol
    Siggy, Aug 29, 2007
  5. This Virtual Lens Plant (Canon) may interest you:

    Posted here on March 09

    David J Taylor, Aug 29, 2007
  6. RichA

    Siggy Guest

    Siggy, Aug 29, 2007
  7. RichA

    cjcampbell Guest

    cjcampbell, Aug 29, 2007
  8. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Aug 29, 2007
  9. Hell, I've always had them, the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and the 70-200/2.8 VR.
    The only way I will be buying these two new Nikkors is either out of boredom
    or they have miraculous image quality over the above. Got the 85/1.4.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Aug 29, 2007
  10. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    They are 'digital'


    14mm is pretty amazing for a pro zoom. The 'old' 14mm f/2.8 prime cost
    close to that much so I'll be amazed if this zoom is as good.
    Paul Furman, Aug 29, 2007
  11. RichA

    D_Mac Guest

    Curious situation this. A few years ago I bought a Sigma F/2.8 lens
    and a 2x multiplier. Total cost? Under $3k AUD and I got a FF 120mm ~
    300mm zoom which gave me close to the same quality images as a Canon
    400mm lens. No IS to be sure but it didn't cost me the price of a new
    car either!

    There is a lot of controversy about Sigma lenses. Most of it gained in
    the early days when they had to reverse engineer camera maker's lenses
    to see how they worked and often got it wrong. The only complaint I
    have with my 120 -300 is the cost of filters and it's weight! A 105mm
    Circular polariser cost me nearly $300 and the tripod requirement are
    way past the little Manfrotto I had. Otherwise I'm stoked on the
    quality of images it takes. Different strokes for different folks, I

    D_Mac, Aug 30, 2007
  12. Now that is funny!
    Yes, this does sound tempting, but I'm not feeling the excitement from these
    two offerings.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Aug 30, 2007
  13. Yep! It's getting ridiculous. I think a lot has to do with inflation and a
    crappy dollar. About a month ago I had a chance to pick up Nikon's latest
    used version of the 400/2.8 AF-S II without VR for $5k. I didn't have a
    good feeling about it and it was higher than the 40% rule allows so I
    passed. Looking back I'm glad I did.
    I'm sure Sigma has some decent lenses, but I'm not into buying off brand
    lenses since they don't hold any resale value should I decide to sell them.
    You can still get a few bucks for Canon's 16-35/2.8 is needed. Even name
    brand bad lenses still have value.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Aug 30, 2007
  14. RichA

    Paul Furman Guest

    It was meant jokingly but a little bit serious as they have the new nano
    crystal coating and probably are optimized for digital somewhat (less
    oblique light path, etc).
    I still have trouble spending that kind of cash on a wide to normal zoom
    which I can get a faster version of for 1/5 the price in an old manual
    focus or even AF prime that weighs a fraction as much. I can see it for
    the 70-200 but the 24-70 when a 50mm prime is probably better? I don't
    think so. 14mm is pretty cool though and wide angle is awfull difficult
    to get right so if they've done this well, I may be interested.
    Paul Furman, Aug 30, 2007
  15. I'm still not convinced Nano Crystal is really doing anything better for the
    lenses on a dSLR. The only Nano lens I have is the 105 VR and it is
    optically equal to the 105/2.8 AF-D. Of course the bokeh is a bit better on
    the VR version when used as a tele.
    Using manual lenses on the D200 is OK with a Katz-Eye, but it doesn't
    compare to the Mk III's screen. I hope the D3 and D300 have better
    viewfinders and screens. Zooms are getting better and reaching the point of
    amazing. I like primes myself and zooming with my feet can be fun.
    Sometimes a zoom is so damn convenient. Like I said, if these two new
    lenses don't break and optical records by an earth-shattering margin there's
    no need for me to buy them.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Aug 30, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.