Are Nikon Lens Prices making u think about switching ?

[watsonD50]

I know it's a tough question, but i have been following the prices for the last couple of months and they are getting worse. New Nikon lenses are selling at ridiculously high prices, and older manual focus options are just as bad. If this is the future of Nikon, I might consider either 1) Using another brand of lenses such as Tamron or 2) Switching to another body like Canon Is anyone else concerned ?


Thoughts ?

 

[JMontes]

Yes and no. The D3 is what will keep me with Nikon. I'm bummed about the lens prices no doubt...in fact, it really sucks. However, I'm trying to budget for buying a few more pro lenses...the real killer is a 300 or 400mm lens, that is REALLY hard to stomach. Luckily my son is still young and the 70-200 works really well for his soccer games right now, but when he gets to bigger fields, it's going to be very costly for me!

 

[ronnies]

No, because it would cost me more to switch to another system than to keep the one I've got.

Ronnie

 

[SLRShooter]

I am considering buying a used Canon 40D and a Canon 500mm used lens. The Nikon 500 and 600mm are just so high I can't see myself ever getting one. But, I will keep my other Nikon bodies and lens.

Norm

I know it's a tough question, but i have been following the prices for the last couple of months and they are getting worse. New Nikon lenses are selling at ridiculously high prices, and older manual focus options are just as bad. If this is the future of Nikon, I might consider either 1) Using another brand of lenses such as Tamron or 2) Switching to another body like Canon Is anyone else concerned ?


Thoughts ?

 

[jaysinnva]

It certainly has, not to mention the lenses I'd be interested in if I did switch (17-40/4L, 24-105/4L, 300/4 IS or 400/5.6). I'm not sure I'd actually do it, but it's hard to not think about it.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I am considering buying a used Canon 40D and a Canon 500mm used lens. The Nikon 500 and 600mm are just so high I can't see myself ever getting one. But, I will keep my other Nikon bodies and lens.

Norm

I was just checking prices on the Canon 400 2.8 IS on B&H, there is a 2 grand difference between the Nikon 400 and Canon version! I don't blame you buying a Canon body just for that lens!

 

[GBRandy]

I was just checking prices on the Canon 400 2.8 IS on B&H, there is a 2 grand difference between the Nikon 400 and Canon version! I don't blame you buying a Canon body just for that lens!

An excellent condition used MKIIn is less than $2,000 and is a pro series body (PM me...I may have one for sale soon). You can buy that and a 400 or 500 lens for the same price as the Nikon glass.....wowzer.

Nikon lens prices are pretty high. A few would argue they are better quality in some cases.....but THAT much?

 

[watsonD50]

I love Nikon

but the prices are ridiculous and come at a bad time considering the current state of the economy, if anything i thought prices might drop. Luckily I have never really been 'married' to one brand, which makes things easier. Of course lenses from companies like Tamron have become really great as of late, even with a few caveats here and there, the optics match or exceed some of Nikon's best. It would be hard to give up my D200, it's the best camera i have ever used and has never failed me or made me desire something else, but what can u do - i want to invest more money into my home and the lens prices are turning me off to the point i just have little desire to buy Nikon right now.

 

[camerapapi]

Over the years Nikon has been more expensive to own. Except for top professional bodies, Nikon has always been more expensive or, in that range, as expensive.
I have the lenses I need so I cannot say a word about prices. If I had to start all over again I still would go Nikon.
I am not saying cameras and lenses of one of the two systems are better than the other. I have used Nikon for over 40 years and I feel confident using their system. I have no questions in my mind that both systems do well.
I cannot comment on prices for lenses but cameras certainly depreciate fast. It is obvious the money is better spent on lenses than on cameras.
Just my opinion.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

 

[DanielD]

I have an will in the future consider third party lenses on a per lens basis. But after having played with a Canon recently I wasn't very impressed with the ergonomics. (Wasn't thinking about switching, just playing around with one.)

And in the end it's me most of the time who made the bad pictures, not the lens, so why not practice with what I already have? :redface:

 

[intrepid24]

Void Fillers and Alternatives

Not so much the prices, but filling voids or offering good value.

Voids: The Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 comes immediately to mind, as well as their 100-300mm f/4, 150mm macro, and 30mm f/1.4. Add the Tokina 11-16mm to that list.

Alternatives: Tamron's 18-50mm f/2.8 and 28-75mm f/2.8 have also gotten high marks as alternatives to Nikon's offerings in their respective ranges.

Having choices shapes the supply/demand curve, along with out-of-pocket vs business write-off cost.

I know it's a tough question, but i have been following the prices for the last couple of months and they are getting worse. New Nikon lenses are selling at ridiculously high prices, and older manual focus options are just as bad. If this is the future of Nikon, I might consider either 1) Using another brand of lenses such as Tamron or 2) Switching to another body like Canon Is anyone else concerned ?


Thoughts ?

 

[Rich Gibson]

I know it's a tough question, but i have been following the prices for the last couple of months and they are getting worse. New Nikon lenses are selling at ridiculously high prices, and older manual focus options are just as bad. If this is the future of Nikon, I might consider either 1) Using another brand of lenses such as Tamron or 2) Switching to another body like Canon Is anyone else concerned ?


Thoughts ?

No.

 

[JMontes]

I have an will in the future consider third party lenses on a per lens basis. But after having played with a Canon recently I wasn't very impressed with the ergonomics. (Wasn't thinking about switching, just playing around with one.)

And in the end it's me most of the time who made the bad pictures, not the lens, so why not practice with what I already have? :redface:

Being a newbie starting out, the feel of canon bodies is what brought me to Nikon. I was going to buy Canon sight unseen online, sure glad I went to a camera shop and felt both Nikon and Canon.

 

[Ron Scubadiver]

In a word, yes.

Right now I have a D300, 3 DX lenses and a 70-300 VR. If I decide to go full frame that leaves only one more lens to sell and I bet it would be an easy one to sell at that.

What is the point of having a great body like a D700 and putting crappy glass on it? However, with the 24-70 at $1800 (Canon's is around $1200) many are considering the new Sigma HSM. Most of what is lacking in the 5DII is stuff that helps BIF and sports photographers, and I don't do either. Weight and bulk are an issue for me as well. The 14-24 may be the best performing FX ultra wide zoom in the universe, but at 1 kilo and a protruding front element, a Canon 17-40 f/4 would work a lot better for me, and cost $1000 less. It adds up with every lens. I am not concerned about the big telephotos, as my interests do not benefit all that much from them. By the way, the 5DII weighs 175 gr. less than a D700 and is more compact.

I am well aware that Nikon builds more robust bodies than anyone else, but the cost of staying with their glass is getting insane. I wonder if Nikon pro gear is going the way of Leica.

 

[Steiner]

I am also a little confused about the high prices - in December I could have got a 200mm f/2.0VR for about 20.000 danish crones (3.500 - 4.000 dollars I think) by Grays of Westminster, but now the RRP, as they call it, is about 31.000 danish crones - that is a redicilous raise in price, so I will live without.

But I do not think I ever will shift from Nikon - just the service I get and have got in the years, is so fine, and I love many of my lenses, and the way I can work a Nikon camera in my hands is what I need, and Canon can not give me that feeling.

 

[morcguy]

I see that Canon has new rebates on many of their pro lenses. Did their proces go up recently, as Nikon did?

If not, the disparity is getting even greater.


But it will not make me switch.

 

[Allan]

For a while I felt like Norm in post #4. However, I like the ergonomics of Nikon so much better than Canon (I used to own a 1DMk2, a 5d, and a 30d) so I stuck with Nikon and ponied up for the long lens which is what I use 95% of the time.

But I was tempted.

 

[tanchiro58]

Nikon lenses are more expensive than 3rd party lenses because they have high quality of glasses. However, Sigma is considered a 3rd party lens too but look at the price of their HSM zoom lenses which I could not afford too.

 

[Michael Mohrmann]

I have already done this several times in the past 3 years, and I would rather not do this again (Canon EOS A2 -> Nikon D200 -> Canon 40D/5D -> Nikon D700). For me, there is no other body in my price range that I like other than the D700. It's just too frustrating using the crop sensor DSLRs with my eyeglasses, otherwise I would be using the D300 or D90. So, I live with the limited selection of modern FX AF lenses.

But yes, a better kit for me would be the D700 + Canon 17-40/4 and 70-200/4 (I can live with the Nikkor 28-105/3.5-4.5 over the Canon 24-105/4).

 

[btg1]

The ergonomics mainly keep me with Nikon, but at the moment I can't see myself buying any Nikon lens (due to price increases)
I also will not buy 3rd party lens because I prefer the handling (consistency) of Nikon lens.
Hopefully prices will come down; if not, surely Nikon is the one to lose just as much...
Of course (full-time) pro-shooters that have to buy new glass will just have to do it.
It's pretty tricky, and as I type this I still think a 200mm f2 lens would be really nice to have right now....