Please advise, Nikon d800e with 24-70mm v Canon 5d m3 with 24-70mm...

Started Oct 15, 2012 | Discussions thread
JamieTux Veteran Member • Posts: 4,079
Re: Please advise, Nikon d800e with 24-70mm v Canon 5d m3 with 24-70mm...

Slideshow Bob wrote:

I really wish you were right, but unfortunately, there are very few Canon products that currently sell for less than the nikon equivalent. Now, it could be that the price might drop, but evidence suggests that might not be the case with lenses. Look at the 200 f/2, which is still £750 more than the Nikon one. And don't even get me started on the new pro tele lenses (which are currently advertised as being as much as £3000 more expensive (for the 600 f/4)). The Canon 24-70 II is £700 more expensive than the Nikon.

It's not the same story everywhere, but here in the U.K, Canon is becoming unbelievably expensive.

SB

Hi Bob, I agree that the new 24-70 is more at the moment, but the old one was the cheapest.  I've not looked at teles at the kind of length you mention so I'm not going to make guesses at why there is a disparity there!

But in other focal lengths that are more commonly used in fashion and portraiture it's not the same, using warehouse express the prices I get are...

Nikon 16-35mm f4 (It has IS/VR I know) £829 / Canon 17-40L f4 £609

Nikon 50mm f1.8 £164 / Canon 50mm f1.8 £83

Nikon 35mm f1.4 £1299 / Canon 35mm f1.4 £1158

Nikon 85mm f1.8 £379 / Canon 85mm f1.8 £305

It's the same story with the TS-E and PC-E optics, Canon are quite a bit cheaper for the 45 and 85mm/90mm versions and more for the 24mm (but it also does not have to go back to manufacturer to change the plane of the movements) and there is no Nikon equivalent of the 17mm TS-E.

As you start getting longer you then run into differences, Canon seem slightly more for the highest spec stuff - but they have more options below it - so the 70-200 f2.8 IS/VR is cheaper in Nikon but it's the ONLY option, with Canon you can go f2.8 or f4 and IS or not, there is also a 200mm f2.8 that is significantly cheaper than the f2 versions, plus the 135 f2, no Nikon equivalent, 100-400L, no Nikon equivalent and of course the 300mm options are similarly priced despite Nikon having (relatively) slow AF and no IS/VR.

So I am still not disagreeing that Canon can be more expensive in some areas but it's not as one sided as you might have thought especially if you were building a set up for a studio where you don't need the fastest lenses (or IS).

 JamieTux's gear list:JamieTux's gear list
Nikon 1 J5 Fujifilm X-E3 Nikon 1 Nikkor 18.5mm f/1.8 Zeiss Touit 50mm F2.8 Nikon 1 Nikkor VR 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 PD-Zoom +6 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow