Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon & Canon 200mm F/2.0 Price

Go to last post
F

framboulatos

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Anybody has any ideas why the price difference between those two lenses? I have both Nikon and Canon bodies and I was looking to invest in a 200mm fast lens for low light theater/dance shooting. It turns out the Canon lens is $2k more expensive than the Nikon one and I have no idea why. I know the Canon one came out only recently but could that be the reason?
 
framboulatos said:
Anybody has any ideas why the price difference between those two
lenses? I have both Nikon and Canon bodies and I was looking to
invest in a 200mm fast lens for low light theater/dance shooting. It
turns out the Canon lens is $2k more expensive than the Nikon one and
I have no idea why. I know the Canon one came out only recently but
could that be the reason?
Click to expand...
I think that is certainly one reason, and the dollar being even weaker than usual. It used to be that Canon lenses were usually less expensive than similar Nikon ones, but compare the recent Nikkor 14-24 mm with the also recent Canon 14 mm prime.

Unless the extra weight of the Nikkor is a problem for you, then the Nikon is a much better buy. And if you are using it indoors, the black is a lot less obtrusive than the white.

Brian A.
 
The significant higher price on the Canon is disturbing. The more you pay, the better the lens, right? Let's hope it is the case here.

I sold a couple of of my L zooms in anticipation for the 200mmL IS, but its price has keep me away at least for now. It is too bad, as I really like the 200mm focal length on 1.3x crop.

--
_ _
\ / ~
~ \ ~ ~ ~ o
 
Hugowolf said:
I think that is certainly one reason, and the dollar being even
weaker than usual. It used to be that Canon lenses were usually less
expensive than similar Nikon ones, but compare the recent Nikkor
14-24 mm with the also recent Canon 14 mm prime.
Click to expand...
both N & C are operating from Japan (well, almost as much of their
production is now moved to other places, but not... to the Euro zone
yet :).
Hugowolf said:
Unless the extra weight of the Nikkor is a problem for you, then the
Nikon is a much better buy. And if you are using it indoors, the
black is a lot less obtrusive than the white.
Click to expand...
yes, and how beautifully BLACK it is!

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
jpr2 said:
Why should weaker dollar affect N & C differently?
Click to expand...
It isn’t pure economics. Both these lenses are made in Japan. Lens prices are calculated shortly prior to introduction, based on the rate of exchange. After introduction there is little fluctuation in price for most lenses. The Nikkor was introduced in 2004, when the dollar was much stronger.

Some lens prices do creep up in line with ¥/$ € £ rates, the 100-400 mm L and 400 mm f/5.6 L, for example. The 100-400 mm was only US$1,100 four years ago.

Brian A.
 
The Canon lens has fluorite element and UD glass. Fluorite element is very expensive to make, and perhaps more importantly Nikon does not make them. That could account for part of the price difference. The other part is because the marketing draw of fluorite lens.

Canon claims that this lens is sharper than the old 200mm f1.8. If so, that would be truly impressive performance. The old 200mm lens is rated 4.8 by photodo.com, which is higher than any lens tested by photodo.com, including Leica, Nikkor and Carl Zeiss lenses.
framboulatos said:
Anybody has any ideas why the price difference between those two
lenses? I have both Nikon and Canon bodies and I was looking to
invest in a 200mm fast lens for low light theater/dance shooting. It
turns out the Canon lens is $2k more expensive than the Nikon one and
I have no idea why. I know the Canon one came out only recently but
could that be the reason?
Click to expand...
 
marsbar said:
This has got to be one of canon's sharpest lenses:
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458

This just blows my mind! and thats wide open too!!
Click to expand...
I'd rather look at something like this (and 1DsIII is certainly less sensor limited):

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=458&Camera=453&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=245&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&Sample=1

not that huge a difference (any btw. why they can't fix that jumpy images?),

jpr2
--

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
 
I sold my 200mm f/1.8 in anticipation of getting the new 200mm f/2 when it became available. I thought it was wishful thinking that it would be introduced at some of the low estimates that people had around $2,500. I thought that the street price would settle in around $4,000. I was not surprised that the MSRP was $6,000, what has surprised me is that now that it is in stock it is still selling for $6,000.

I will wait until it drops, I think it will drop to at least $5,000, hopefully lower. It may not get down to $4,000 but I think it will drop over the course of the next year.
 
What I find even more disturbing, horrible and outrageous is Canon's price for 800mm L F5.6 IS. In the UK it's an absolutely obscene and insane - GBP8,999. (I wonder for how long - seems for a very long time) In my opinion it is. Well, not going to buy it anyway. Just feel for others.
----------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/onlooker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top