 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2007Nikon's new lenses = heart stopping prices
Holy s---! And I wondered why Olympus's 300mm f2.8 (no I.S.) was $7000 http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9085 > Holy s---! And I wondered why Olympus's 300mm f2.8 (no I.S.) was > $7000 > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9085 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 On Aug 29, 7:48 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > Holy s---! And I wondered why Olympus's 300mm f2.8 (no I.S.) was > > $7000 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rita 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 guess. Doug >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 400mm lens. No IS to be sure but it didn't cost me the price of a new > car either! 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > quality of images it takes. Different strokes for different folks, I > guess. 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 > Holy s---! And I wondered why Olympus's 300mm f2.8 (no I.S.) was > $7000 > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9085 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  Signature"Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who'll get the blame." - Bertrand Russell 8< > ps. Anyone know how they make optical glass to start with? :-s Damn, I knew the moment I asked that Google would bloody find it. http://www.gnyman.com/Personal/Optical%20Glass.htm Like TV was first received by our forebears, it'll (Google that is) be the death of conversation as we know it! lol Signature"Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who'll get the blame." - Bertrand Russell >> Holy s---! And I wondered why Olympus's 300mm f2.8 (no I.S.) was >> $7000 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ps. Anyone know how they make optical glass to start with? :-s This Virtual Lens Plant (Canon) may interest you: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/index2.html Posted here on March 09 Cheers, David > This Virtual Lens Plant (Canon) may interest you: > > http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/l_plant/index2.html > > Posted here on March 09 Thanks David! The graphic representation of a foreign process is always much easier to assimilate for someone like me. :)) Signature"Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who'll get the blame." - Bertrand Russell > Holy s---! And I wondered why Olympus's 300mm f2.8 (no I.S.) was > $7000 > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9085 It is called inflation. You gotta be a millionaire now to enjoy photography. > Holy s---! And I wondered why Olympus's 300mm f2.8 (no I.S.) was > $7000 > > http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8742-9085 Heh, apart from the long tele's, you only need three lenses with this lineup. And maybe an 85 f/1.4. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > Heh, apart from the long tele's, you only need three lenses with this > lineup. And maybe an 85 f/1.4. 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 >> Heh, apart from the long tele's, you only need three lenses with this >> lineup. And maybe an 85 f/1.4. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. 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. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >>> Heh, apart from the long tele's, you only need three lenses with >>> this lineup. And maybe an 85 f/1.4. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They are 'digital' Now that is funny! > 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. Yes, this does sound tempting, but I'm not feeling the excitement from these two offerings. Rita >>>> Heh, apart from the long tele's, you only need three lenses with >>>> this lineup. And maybe an 85 f/1.4. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Now that is funny! 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). >> 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. > > Yes, this does sound tempting, but I'm not feeling the excitement from > these two offerings. 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. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com >>> They are 'digital' >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > nano crystal coating and probably are optimized for digital somewhat > (less oblique light path, etc). 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. >>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is awfull difficult to get right so if they've done this well, I may > be interested. 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 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.