New Nikon 70-200 f/4G VR with 5-stop VR system

I thought he was going to the dark side to "save" money...
How is that saving if it's $300 more expensive than its Canon counterpart?

andrikos wrote in post #15181686
I thought he was going to the dark side to "save" money...
How is that saving if it's $300 more expensive than its Canon counterpart?

Actually, at the time this thread was created the regular price for the Canon 70-200 F4 IS at BH was $1349. The Nikon version was only $50 more plus with the Nikon version you get an extra stop of stabilization. Now, at BH, the regular price of the Canon version has been lowered to $1299. Only $100 less than the Nikon version.

I guess your calculation is based off Canon's instant savings sale price. On 12/1/12, the Canon version will be $1299. You might pay a little more for the Nikon version, but you're getting an extra stop for that hundred bucks.

Adorama has the Canon version regular price at $1349.

You can find it new $1150 no problem, because it's been around a while.
The non-IS is $629 brand new.

The Nikon version will be $1400 for at least a year I would think...

I'm happy for this release. This lens is the lens I missed most when I switched to Nikon. It's about time.

Razeus wrote in post #15186390
I'm happy for this release. This lens is the lens I missed most when I switched to Nikon. It's about time.

This lens looks like the perfect complement to your three primes, assuming you need longer than 85mm. How do you like the primes, btw?

andrikos wrote in post #15181686
I thought he was going to the dark side to "save" money...
How is that saving if it's $300 more expensive than its Canon counterpart?

Bwuh?

Depends on what lenses you talk about... Really I wouldnt be saving money, the only way I'm "Saving" is that i can sell everything and get a decent D600 kit with the money, Whereas I have to wait until I can afford to buy a 5D Mark III

For me:

On Canon I have a Sigma 50mm f/1.4, On Nikon I'd be happy with the f/1.8G, Which saves me money

On Canon I have the 28mm f/1.8, on Nikon I'd have the 28mm f/1.8G... in this case the Nikkors more expensive but a better lens

The 70-200s I'd love the Nikkors closer MFD and the extra VR stop, but I dont know if its really going to be a "better" lens, the Canon is stupendous as it is

100L vs 105VR, Both great lenses, but I think the Stabilizer on the L is better (Hybrid IS vs standard VR that doesnt work at 1:1 if i remember right)

24-105 vs 24-120, Both great, I think the Nikon is a little better in some ways (Newer lens) but the 24-105 was really nice when i owned it.. so again...

17-40 f/4 vs 16-35 f/4G VR, No contest, Nikon wins hands down.. Though I'd kinda rather have an f/2.8 wide the 14-24 is just too large (I'd prefer the 17-35 but its not current)

andrikos wrote in post #15182151
You can find it new $1150 no problem, because it's been around a while.

Because it's on sale with a $200 instant rebate until December 1st. After that it goes back up to it's regular price of $1,349. http://www.usa.canon.c​om …lash_ir_102812_​rebate.pdf

Canon's regular retail price $1,349.00
Nikon's regular retail price $1,399.95
Price difference $50.95

So for a limited time only, the Canon is noticeably cheaper.

match14 wrote in post #15181394
Pity there is no Exif info. I would like to know the aperture on that flower pic.

KenjiS wrote in post #15189455
Bwuh?

Depends on what lenses you talk about... Really I wouldnt be saving money, the only way I'm "Saving" is that i can sell everything and get a decent D600 kit with the money, Whereas I have to wait until I can afford to buy a 5D Mark III

For me:

On Canon I have a Sigma 50mm f/1.4, On Nikon I'd be happy with the f/1.8G, Which saves me money

On Canon I have the 28mm f/1.8, on Nikon I'd have the 28mm f/1.8G... in this case the Nikkors more expensive but a better lens

The 70-200s I'd love the Nikkors closer MFD and the extra VR stop, but I dont know if its really going to be a "better" lens, the Canon is stupendous as it is

100L vs 105VR, Both great lenses, but I think the Stabilizer on the L is better (Hybrid IS vs standard VR that doesnt work at 1:1 if i remember right)

24-105 vs 24-120, Both great, I think the Nikon is a little better in some ways (Newer lens) but the 24-105 was really nice when i owned it.. so again...

17-40 f/4 vs 16-35 f/4G VR, No contest, Nikon wins hands down.. Though I'd kinda rather have an f/2.8 wide the 14-24 is just too large (I'd prefer the 17-35 but its not current)

how does the canon 16-35 f2.8 compare to the nikon 16-35 f4?

No clue really, I'd assume the Canon is actually sharper at f/4 because its stopped down whereas the Nikon is wide open...

If I go by Photozone's school marks (IE NOT the numbers just where it falls in regards to Excellent, Very Good, etc) This seems to be the case, the Canon at f/2.8 is equal to the Nikon at f/4 roughly...

hazwing wrote in post #15189640
how does the canon 16-35 f2.8 compare to the nikon 16-35 f4?

Here is the IQ comparison on TDP:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

The obvious benefit is the extra f-stop of the Canon versus the VR in the Nikon. At these focal lengths, I would probably pick the VR if I had the choice.