Guess can I say this on a Canon forum...Canon Lenses are cheap. Nikon ain't.

Hey everyone,

I didn't know really where to put this but I wanted to ask a simple question,

Why the heck are Nikon lenses so expensive?
I've been a Canon user since the 30D simply (believe it or not) because the Grip of mid-range/high-end Canon's fit my hand alot better than Nikon's do.
Sony and Pentax have similar grips where your index finger fits perfectly within the grip.

Anyways, a new friend of mine who I met during a photoshoot switched to Nikon with the D7000 and we took a look at the prices of Canon and Nikon lenses and were astonished.

Here in Canada:
Canon 35mm 1.4L = 1199.99 - Nikon 35mm 1.4G = 1749.99
Canon 24-70mm f2.8L = 1249.99 - Nikon 24-70mm - 1599.99
Canon 70-200mm f2.8L II = 1974 (B&H) - Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 II VR - 2396
Canon 17-40mm f4L - 819.99 - Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR - 1239.99

What gives??? Now obviously none of this is "cheap" but definitely CHEAPER.

With a few exceptions, Nikon has been upgrading their lenses, playing catch up. Nikon was late in the game, with their full frame, and have been updating lenses, since.

Canon has a lot of older lenses in the lineup, such as the 24-70/17-40 etc. who's tooling and R&D have already been recouped.

Canon's newer lenses, are more expensive then the ones they replaced.

For whatever it is worth, Nikon includes hoods and they have a significantly longer warranty, who's cost has to be factored in.

There are more things that can affect pricing but I think I have covered the more significant ones between these 2 companies.

Well Canon is trying to catch up and pass Nikon in pricing.

Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS Mk II USM Telephoto Lens - $12,999.00 ( MkI Version was $9,200 last price B&H )

Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR Autofocus Lens (Black) $9,999.00

Canon lenses are less expensive, not cheap

I"m wondering how the optical quality of the current Nikon glass compares to the current Canon.

As bohank and harcosparky point out, when Canon upgrades glass, the price goes way up; probably pass Nikon. I'm not looking forward to how much the rumored 24-70 mk III is going to cost me.

marcosv wrote in post #13644134
I"m wondering how the optical quality of the current Nikon glass compares to the current Canon.

As bohank and harcosparky point out, when Canon upgrades glass, the price goes way up; probably pass Nikon. I'm not looking forward to how much the rumored 24-70 mk III is going to cost me.

Look at the Canon 100-400mm IS L .... I paid $1,600 for mine, and the new version is rumored to be coming out at $2,800.00.

Of course that might be a good thing for us " dust pump " owners, it will help keep the resale price up for a while.

.

marcosv wrote in post #13644134
I"m wondering how the optical quality of the current Nikon glass compares to the current Canon.

As bohank and harcosparky point out, when Canon upgrades glass, the price goes way up; probably pass Nikon. I'm not looking forward to how much the rumored 24-70 mk III is going to cost me.

Not to worry, the new Nikon will be even more expensive again .

Kind regards, Wim

I don't know...

A person I know has a Nikor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR something bla bla bla - a near equivalent of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM Mark I.

He said it cost around $1600, yet I see that the Canon version costs a few hundred dollars more, at around $1900.

Hmm...

marcosv wrote in post #13644134
I"m wondering how the optical quality of the current Nikon glass compares to the current Canon.

As bohank and harcosparky point out, when Canon upgrades glass, the price goes way up; probably pass Nikon. I'm not looking forward to how much the rumored 24-70 mk III is going to cost me.

I don't shoot primes but from what I can tell:

For zooms Canon is trying to catch up to Nikon IQ and for primes Nikon is trying to catch up to Canon.

- The latest versions of the Canon and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 IS/VR's are equal

- The Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is significantly better than the Canon version (sharper wide open, especially at 70mm). I own good copies of both the Nikon and the Canon.

- I currently have a consumer Nikon 70-300 VR and the optical quality in the 70-200 range is pretty much the same as my old 70-200 f/4L, but obviously not built as well. I like the build and IQ more than the Canon 70-300 IS (non-L).

- The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is the best UWA zoom offered by either company.

Other than that the only issue I have with Nikon is that they don't have a good equivalent to the relatively inexpensive 100-400L. I can't afford their 200-400 f/4.


The only prime I've been researching, but haven't purchased is a 50mm. My conclusion is that neither company offers anything better than the other as far as IQ goes for 50mm, and neither company offers anything stellar.

Let's don't confuse cheap with cheaper. Yes, Canon lenses are usually cheaper than comparable Nikon lenses but not always.

I just looked up the Nikon 24mm f/1.4 G last night, and it costs well over $2k Canon's 24L is what, ~$1600?

To the OP, it's also worth noting that every single one of those lenses you picked as an example (except the 35 1.4 and maybe the 70-200) the Nikon version is noticeably better.

I'm waiting for the Sigma crowd to jump into this one...

Jump
Whilst there may be marginally better IQ, AF or build in Canon/Nikon lenses I still think Sigma offers some great value for money lenses. If we are honest with ourselves really good shots that need to wring the absolute last bit of performance from kit is not the realm of most of us. As to why Canon/Nikon disparities, prices tend to follow what the market will bear. Folk will pay more for what they perceive as value, whether or not it is. You can get a good reliable car for half the money of a BMW or Mercedes, so you have to ask what are you paying for.

Actually, Nikon is better with bodies, they have much better dynamic on apsc format and the top D3x is better than 1Ds too ... as I can see some partners with a D7000 noise control is also much better.

I am Canon for 25 years and won't change, but for my friends and family I recommend them D5100 and D7000 ..definitely much better than 7D or 60D ...