DA 16-50 and DA 50-135 prices doubled - It's an outrage

Started Sep 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: Sorry, you talk nonsense

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:

So you believe that Nikon's 70-200/2.8 now priced at B&H at $2,396.95 is justified, and Pentax' focal length equivalent should be $900 max?

I didn't say it should be $900, but it's not worth $1500. If you've ever owed a 70-200 2.8 VR, there is no comparison to the Pentax 50-135. The 70-200 is a FF, all metal tank of a lens with a tripod collar and VR.

An APS-C only zoom is not comparable. The only equivalence with the 70-200 and 50-135 is focal length.

And you have no qualms about jumping to Nikon because the price of their lens is 60% (roughly $800) higher even after considering (yours almost double) $1525 as a RRP?

Can extra $800 buy you a lens collar and an extra body?

Can it buy VR too?

Sorry, but if you think loyalty means accepting outrageous non-competitive then we just have a difference of opinion. I have no intention of falling in line with such pricing policies, and I don't imagine I'll be alone in refusing to pay so much more for less than the competition offers.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
ET2
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow