 Eric H. Pait |
cost of lenses... Why is it that Nikon lenses are so much more expensive than their Canon equivalents? Are they really that much sharper/faster that they're worth another $400-$3000? I know right now I'm seriously considering making the switch, since I have minimal investment in Nikon, and frankly being on a tight budget I'd rather be able to save that money on lenses down the line if it's not 100% worth it...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Eric, The camera lens is all about design and manufacturing. Lenses may look alike from the outside however inside they may be quite different. The lens designer attempts perfection, high quality may come with an unaffordable price tag. It takes many months to design a lens. When the design is finished, a working model is made. If the design has merit a way must be found to mass-produce it. It often costs millions to excurse these steps. The final mass-produced lens is no better than the quality of the manufacturing. When all is said and done, you must recover engineering costs and make a profit. Do you recover these costs after the first 500 or 1,000 or 10,000 units? These decisions determine the price paid by the consumer. Alan Marcus (marginal technical gobbledygook)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark Feldstein |
Hey Eric. I think Alan's analysis of your question could go a step further by asking you whether you think the quality of your work, now or in the future, will support the cost of the characteristics available in higher-priced lenses. I think that the answer to that is in the size of the finished prints you're doing, whether you're pleased with color balance and optical clarity, your shooting style, and to some extent, the ergonomics of say Canon vs. Nikkor lenses. In addition, while I'm not altogether that familiar with current product lines since they change so quickly, I can safely say that at one point, years ago, Nikon manufacturered lenses that were for pros or advanced amateurs and a more consumer oriented line. The less expensive lenses used more plastic than metal. Their optics, especially in terms of sharpness and multi-coatings weren't quite as good as the pro grade, and they weren't quite as sturdy as the pro lenses. Yes you paid more for the higher grade. Was it worth it? To me, absolutely because I'm still using lenses I bought 25-30 years ago. So in that sense, the costlier lenses may be an investment in your work both now and in the future. Do I notice a difference? I shoot strictly film. At higher magnifications, with a critical eye, I can tell a difference where all other things including shooting technique, type of film, camera type, and magnification are equal. My suggestion to you is that you establish some of your own review criteria, rent the type of lenses you're thinking about buying and try them out for a weekend running those tests and compare the results. That way, you really know what's going to work for you and whether you want to justify the costs.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
What nikon lens cost $3000 more than an equivalent canon lens?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
This Nikon vs. Canon war will wage on long after we've all passed on to that big darkroom in the sky. Personally, I chose the Nikon system because back in the old days, those manual-focus AI-S prime Nikkors set the standards within their market for image sharpness, accurate color rendition, ruggedness and reliability. For those reasons, the Nikon (Nikkor) name has in the past (...and will probably always) command a heftier price tag. As Alan points out, quality of design and manufacturing expertise is what determines market price. (Keep in mind though that there are good and bad lenses by ALL manufacturers.) Bob
|
|
|
|
||
|
Eric H. Pait |
Greg, At Adorama the Nikkor VR 600mm f/4 is $9500 while the Canon EF 600mm f/4 IS is only $7600, so my mistake, it's only a $2000 difference, and granted I won't be making it up into that price range of lenses in the near future, but it's just to make a point. More in my range is the $400-500 price difference in their f/2.8 24-70mm zooms, and not that this will drive me to switch brands, but it was just something that I found odd.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
I see. At one point Canon's 600 probably was closer to the Nikon in price. Canon came out with a 400mm DO that is an f/4 I believe, and that caused a reduction in price of their f/2.8 400. At $7600, the 600mm isn't too far away from what the 400mm 2.8 used to be. So that big a difference looks like just the result of Canon trying to reduce competition within it's own house. But Nikons have always been higher in price I think. But not that big a difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Eric, I'm a Canon user and am here to tell you that worrying about the difference in the 600mm price is crazy unless you've got legitimate reasons to worry. Rent those things whenever you need them and you'll save enough to buy another few lenses. Worry about the 24-70mm, 50mm etc which I believe are about even. If you ever do get to the point where you can afford the 600mm lens you won't flinch at the price tag. Its kinda like comparing Lambo and Ferrari. I do believe Canon has a larger sellection of lenses to choose from.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||