07-31-2009, 03:52 AM
Billybob wrote:
[quote=thermarest]
How can Nikon charge $2400 for a lens when Canon's very excellent version is $1600?
Hmmm...maybe its because they have the D300, which I am very seriously thinking of replacing my 40D with. Too bad they don't have a 400 f5.6 or 70-200 f4
I suspect after the dust settles -- a year, maybe two -- its street price will be competitive with the Canon. The question is will it perform as well as the Canon, and when will they come out with 70-200 f/4 VR that competes with Canon's IS?
I don't think so, they want $2k for the current 70-200mm 2.8
thermarest wrote:
How can Nikon charge $2400 for a lens when Canon's very excellent version is $1600?
Hmmm...maybe its because they have the D300, which I am very seriously thinking of replacing my 40D with. Too bad they don't have a 400 f5.6 or 70-200 f4
It is my belief that we are now paying too much extra $$$$ for diminishing returns. I really doubt a client could tell if it was shot on that $2400 nikon or the $1600 Canon.
For some reason nikon really ignores that 70-200mm f/4 market. I guess they believe people will pay the premium for the 2.8