1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

$2400 is the CORRECT price for 70-200 II (or too low)

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by pforsell, Aug 2, 2009.

  1. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    If we make a little journey back in time, we'll see that:

    * 70-200 VR was about $1500 at introduction in 2003
    * Yen/Dollar ratio 2003/2009 shows that USD has lost a third of its value (32.2%)
    * cumulative inflation in USA during 2003 to 2009 is 25.07% (prices and salaries have increased by this amount)

    So, start with a $1500, add the US inflation and the USD value depreciation, and you end up with $2480. So, Nikon actually has not risen the price but instead LOWERED it. So why all this whining?

    The $2400 is a bargain, you get an instant $80 rebate. :biggrin: It is cheaper than the original was at launch. It only loks like the price is higher, but it is an optical illusion. The USD has lost so much of its value.

    We can clearly see that at this price Nikon is not able to account for increased material and labor costs in Japan, they are actually making less money at this price than what they did with the old lens in 2003. They are virtually giving it free to the US market. And where is the gratitude? All we hear is moan moan whine whine.
  2. Rooz


    Nov 22, 2008
    Sydney, Oz
    what nonsense. the only thing that matters is the price you can get comparable lens' for TODAY on other systems. canon 70-200/2.8 L IS is only $1499. hell, even sony, in all their overpriced glory, is only $1799.

    the lens is seriously overpriced. simple as that. stop trying to defend the indefensible.
  3. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    Not nonsense, just facts.

    Not defending anything, just pointing out the lens is cheaper than its predecessor.
  4. It was overpriced 6 years ago as well.
  5. Julien


    Jul 28, 2006
    Paris, France
    Stop with all this fluff already. If it's too expensive for you don't buy it, if not buy it. The correct price is what you're willing to pay end of story :rolleyes: 
  6. Rooz


    Nov 22, 2008
    Sydney, Oz
    what facts ? irrelevant trivia more like it.
  7. thx Peter....now i'm in as well....i just needed some rationalization and explaination, THANKS !
  8. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    Only if you don't have the dough. Otherwise it's a bargain.
  9. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    And on top of that you have probably worn the old one down to bones already needing a replacement in the not so distant future anyway, new model or no new model. For a weekend hobbyist like me a lens lasts a lifetime.
  10. Post215

    Post215 Guest

    Well said!! I have always said that ALL Nikkors are severely underpriced. I have no problems with Nikon giving away their good glass at bargain basement prices. Plus, it was said that some people lost around 40% in their 401K plans. You can't blame Nikon for the crappy dollar!

    Funny thing is I have always shot with the last Holy Trinity, the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8. I didn't get overly excited about the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 when announced. That doesn't mean that I don't want them or will buy them should they come across my desk for a bargain price. Same with the new 70-200/2.8, I'm in no hurry as the first generation one I have is still kicking butt!
  11. Just to remind you, US guys, that you have been blessed with pretty affordable prices for the past couple of years;

    In April 2008, B&H Photo had a Nikkor 70-200 VR for some $1600,
    at the same time, the same lens had a price of almost $3000 at the authorized dealer here in Croatia.

    So, the prices that you are experiencing now is something that some of us have been experiencing for years....
  12. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    Mmm not really. Most of the price difference can be explained by the typically higher sales tax in Europe. It is 22% in Finland, for example.

    Then again that sales tax buys a free lifetime medical plan for me and my family all inclusive without limit, free unlimited university education all inclusive, a six weeks holiday on full pay, an 8 month maternity leave and a 1 month paternity leave on full pay, and other benefits, that often are priced separately in the US. I think the very bottom line is pretty much the same in the end.

    The pricing of all these things in the US is more transparent, though.

    I am not complaining the marginally higher prices or the clearly higher sales tax in Europe, I believe it is worth it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2009
  13. Well, Peter is correct about the exchange rate, and the don't buy it if it cost too much for you guys are right as well. Randy did a thread about the Nikon system becoming too pricey for many. There is no end to it, really. My only concern is that Nikon will morph into a super premium price brand, not quite as bad as Leica, but at a distinctly higher price point than Canon or Sony. I suppose if that happens, I can sell all my Nikon glass for more than I paid for it when my D300 gets old enough to be a worthless piece of scrap. Its a light at the end of the tunnel.
  14. LSSE

    LSSE Guest

    we'll see once canon releases their new 70-200 if the price gap remains :) 
  15. Good point, Peter.

    However, I believe that in Finland, when you pay the 22% tax, you get all the stuff that you listed in return.

    In some other countries, unfortunately, you pay your 22% tax, but get a lot less in return... (but this, of course, is not a topic of this thread).
  16. Peter - The real question in my mind is why are the top Nikon lenses 20-30% more expensive than the competition? Do they really deliver 20-30% better performance? Is their build 20-30% better? Price versus value is always a valid concern particularly when you've invested in a camera system and one purchase drives the next one.
  17. Are you not potentially double-dipping here in your methodology? When a currency is subject to inflation, by definition, it loses value. If another currency is deflating or inflating at a decreased relative velocity, then it is strengthening in value to the comparative currency. You are taking the inflation of the USD and then adding the inflation of the USD in relation to the JPY?

    For instance, say 1 USD = 1 JPY (for ease). A 70-200mm lens happens to be 1 USD. Say the USD inflated by 100% by the following year and the JPY remained constant. Now 2 USD = 1 JPY.

    You are saying that inflation is 100%, so the 70-200mm lens should be 2USD now. Then you are saying that the USD to JPY increased by 100% so the lens should be 4USD now?

    Must you not account for the inflation or deflation of the yen during this time frame and back that out (or add it)? Perhaps you already did this with your numbers.
  18. The exchange rate in the UK £ versus the $ has plummeted this year I can't see it has had any comparative effect in some ways I think we are leveling out. Nikon prices here have soared this year and so have Canon and Sigma
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2009
  19. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    According to Thom's review of the 70-200VR MkI it was $1895 at intro. Not sure where you got the $1500 figure from.
  20. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    Yes. During the same period a Big Mac has seen an increase in price from $1 to $2, and the salary of the McChef has gone from $10 to $20, but an imported product from $1 all the way to $4, because the currency has devalued. During the same time the product was 100 yen and is now 99 yen.

    The domestic and export prices in Japan have flatlined the last decade, i.e. not inflated nor deflated. Same goes with japanese salaries.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.