Who's making the switch to Nikon / D800

EOSBoy wrote in post #14047073
I'll be paying a bit more out of pocket after selling my gear used... Nikon glass is a little bit more expensive as well. Then again, I've been eying the Sigma 85... It's pretty dern sharp!

You must have missed Canon's new pricing strategy.

ching wrote in post #14047042
But you will be happier!
The Darkside is pulling...

I picked up my partner's D700 to hand it to her and the better build/grip made it hard to let go.

K6AZ wrote in post #14047080
You must have missed Canon's new pricing strategy.

Ha, yea... I'm a bit out of the loop. So are they going to regulate their pricing, aka, price hike?

EOSBoy wrote in post #14047092
Ha, yea... I'm a bit out of the loop. So are they going to regulate their pricing, aka, price hike?

Their new 24-70 is going to be $2300 among other things. Every new lens they release that has a Nikon counterpart is much higher.

K6AZ wrote in post #14047131
Their new 24-70 is going to be $2300 among other things. Every new lens they release that has a Nikon counterpart is much higher.

Geez. What's the dealio?! Good thing I'm more interested in primes. Well, I'll have to replace my 17-40L with a Nikon equivalent.

K6AZ wrote in post #14046558
One more thing - the new Tamron 24-70 VC may change things a bit too. Tamron has really been improving and that new lens looks promising.

Anybody got a price on this? I have it holding the standard zoom spot in my imaginary Nikon lineup.

EOSBoy wrote in post #14047251
Geez. What's the dealio?! Good thing I'm more interested in primes. Well, I'll have to replace my 17-40L with a Nikon equivalent.

That's where Nikon's prices hit hella hard. The Nikon 16-35 f/4 is $1139. Granted it has VR, but ouch! I have a Tokina 17-35 f/4 penciled in here--$719.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #14047273
That's where Nikon's prices hit hella hard. The Nikon 16-35 f/4 is $1139. Granted it has VR, but ouch! I have a Tokina 17-35 f/4 penciled in here--$719.

Arrgh.. That is quite pricey! I'd much rather have the 14-24 2.8 but that's $800 more... Le Sigh!

EOSBoy wrote in post #14047073
I'll be paying a bit more out of pocket after selling my gear used... Nikon glass is a little bit more expensive as well. Then again, I've been eying the Sigma 85... It's pretty dern sharp!

I'm messin' with ya. No matter what side you pick, it's going to be expensive.

jdizzle wrote in post #14047402
I'm messin' with ya. No matter what side you pick, it's going to be expensive.

I see I see! Maybe if I sell my left kidney, I can shoot both sides! Canon and Nikon needs to hurry and get their models out so we can see some reviews! The wait is killing me!

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #14047260
Anybody got a price on this? I have it holding the standard zoom spot in my imaginary Nikon lineup.

No price has been announced yet. It is up on B&H's site but no prices yet.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #14047273
That's where Nikon's prices hit hella hard. The Nikon 16-35 f/4 is $1139. Granted it has VR, but ouch! I have a Tokina 17-35 f/4 penciled in here--$719.

I'm considering the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. I understand that's a pretty good lens. I love Tokina's build quality.

EOSBoy wrote in post #14047314
Arrgh.. That is quite pricey! I'd much rather have the 14-24 2.8 but that's $800 more... Le Sigh!

The 14-24 is practically a bagful of primes - better than most prime lenses in that range! Also, there's a special, extra-large Lee filter holder for it.

K6AZ wrote in post #14047449
I'm considering the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. I understand that's a pretty good lens. I love Tokina's build quality.

That's got a horrible flare problem...

K6AZ wrote in post #14047449
I'm considering the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8. I understand that's a pretty good lens. I love Tokina's build quality.

The canon version is just so-so. Maybe the nikon version is better. But the nikon 16-35 vr is nice. I Played around with my coworkers. Love the vr.