At 12:50 AM 2/9/99 +1300, Simon wrote:
>The price of F100 costs more than F4 when it was launched in 1984
>Might as well buy a F5 at $3200, just $400 more!
Well the arguement for an F100 is that it's smaller and lighter. There are
a few significant differences but for me, if you want something that does
almost everything the F5 does but in a smaller and lighter package, the
F100 is your camera.
>A current 80-200 AF F2.8 cost only $1300 (approx) now and Nikon is asking
>for $3100 for adding a motor to the lens?
Yes- I too think that these prices for the AFS lenses are way out of whack
(too expensive!) I'm not sure what a comparative Canon ISM lens is but
I'll wager it is much less.
Although I am a die-hard Nikon user and just spent money on an F5, an SB-28
and the AF-D 80-200/2.8N I am troubled by the costs of the "professional"
AF-D Nikon glass. When I outfitted my F3 back in the 1980's, I was able to
acquire the fastest prime lenses, real professional lenses, for usually
$450-700 (not including long telephotos.) You can't buy a professional
AF-D lens for less than $1000-1200 today.
Although I am impressed by AF-D lenses like the 20-35/2.8, the 28/1.4, and
the 85/1.4, they are priced way too high.
I think my problem with Nikon AF-D lens pricing is that there is a HUGE
*price* discrepancy between the consumer grade lenses and the professional
lenses. Back in the MF days, pro lenses were maybe 2x the cost of the
consumer grade prime. Now, the AF-D lenses are often 3-4x the price of the
consumer zoom/prime. Has anyone else noticed this?
Not to mention the fact that Nikon doesn't have *enough* fast AF-D lenses
to cover all of the necessary needs. 2.8 isn't *fast* in my book.
But we all know that Nikon doesn't care what the hell we think- only what
the pros and PJs think. And of course the pros and the PJs buy almost
anything they want to because that's their living and most of them can
afford it, right ;)
Right? ;)
Gen
