Nikon Releases Z 800mm at 1/3 Cost of Canon’s

Sort by date Sort by votes
#21
antolalto said:
Canon is embarrassing. I hope this will serve as a lesson, and that we will finally see proper, new RF 300mm and RF 500mm soon. The RF 800mm is almost offensive.
Click to expand...
We? Proper? Canon needs no lesson. Merely because someone releases a cheap lens means very little. Most owners of xtra long lenses are not searching for discounts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#27
Embarrassing is the right word here for Canon. Honestly, those repackaged superteles and their pricing from Canon were just a kick in the teeth to their bigger spenders. Arrogance is another word that comes to mind; seems like Canon didn’t learn its lesson in humility after Sony ate its lunch for a while there—they are back to their old ways of overcharging and arrogantly releasing incremental improvements to get us paying more money over time. The creeping apertures, pricing, and lack of effort turns me off as someone who spent a lot of money to invest in the RF mount. Nikon’s playing catch-up and has a bold pricing strategy, understood, but they’re really exposing the gouging and ridiculousness of Canon’s strategy right now. Glad they continue to have some competition or we’d all be paying $30k for recycled EF lenses by now and chanting “high ISO images are no problem these days, thank you, Canon!” Gimme a break.

I shoot several systems and in general am not brand loyal, so I don’t really care for the brand wars, but Canon needs to get it together and treat their customers better here. My Canon budget is shifting to the Z mount, not by choice, but really it’s just the principle of the thing at this point. I don’t feel like Canon really gives a damn about me or my business. Nikon also offers a lot more for my money as a wildlife photographer.

And I don’t think we’re looking at a leapfrog scenario here; Canon is on a growing trend and I can’t even imagine them offering something like that 800PF at that price—no way will we see it. They’d cripple it somehow to avoid cannibalizing their larger $20k primes they want you to buy. And they wouldn’t undercut their own pricing strategy with all those superteles at those price points now—too late to go back. No, if you want high-quality in a small package from Canon, you are going to be paying big big bucks…their bar is set.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 14 users
Upvote 0
#29
MartinVLC said:
For the price of only the RF 800mm f/5.6 (17K$) you get the Nikon 800mm f/6.3 (6.5K$) + the Nikon 100-400mm (2.7K$) + the Nikon Z9 (5.5K$) and you still have 2300 $ left to spend on ice cream or whatever you want. Canon is embarrassing!
Click to expand...
... I'd spend the extra 2.300 $ for a round trip to Africa (from Europe) and get some really nice of Safari wildlife shots to get some actual use out of the money spent on gear :) And of course, Ice cream at the end of a great day in the Masai Mara :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 11 users
Upvote 0
#31
$6.5k 800mm f/6.3 at less than 2.39kg. Making this weighing at the middle of a EF300/2.8 IS II & EF200/2.0 IS

It's (1) 1/3rd the cost at (2) 1/3rd slower f-stop at (3) 1/2 the weight of faster 800mm lenses.

Front element is equivalent to a 500/4.0

With ISO improvements of 2020s mirrorless bodies makes the 1/3rd stop slower largely a non-issue.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0
#33
If one is on an internet forum complaining about the cost of extremely long lenses, they should be renting them. Most professionals earning a living shooting long lenses are searching for bargain prices
tiggy@mac.com said:
I wouldn't say that Canon is embarrassing, but that I'm super happy Nikon didn't go out of business during its cash crunch a couple years back. The best thing that's happened to us Canon shooters in the past few years is the rapid advancement of the competition. I think we all trust Canon to have the capacity to innovate, but many of us don't trust that they'll deliver it quickly or cheaply without some other companies kicking their shins.

I'm most interested in the fact that you now have a lens gap in Nikon's favor, and a megapixel flagship gap also in Nikon's favor. What a pain in the ass it would be to add a Nikon body just to shoot a whippy 800mm, but when you add in the high resolution, you start to entertain weird thoughts. I could sell one of my R5's and an EF big white Mark II and get a Z9 and 800mm by adding in $3k. No, it's not worth it to me, but the fact I was going through the math is telling.
Click to expand...
"In Nikon's favor" is an exageration without comparative facts. There are lens manufacturers that produce alternative lenses however not comparatively. The question to be answered would be, How much did Nikon discount it previous versions.
 
Upvote 0
#34
jam05 said:
We? Proper? Canon needs no lesson. Merely because someone releases a cheap lens means very little. Most owners of xtra long lenses are not searching for discounts.
Click to expand...
Where do you see a "cheap" lens? I don't see any. Certainly not Nikon's 800mm.
And nobody, especially a professional photographer, has money to waste...
And I hope an intelligent company like Canon knows that learning a lesson from time to time is a necessity.
There is a nice French expression for what Nikon did: "un pave dans la mare", in English something like "they threw a cobblestone into the pond".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0
#35
Cheap because it a PF lense and most likely a lot of plastic molded on to the glass. However Nikon's PF lenses have traditionally come with a great deal of lens flare that had to be dealt with using work arounds. You get what you pay for. If you can deal with lens flare, go for it. Its a deal breaker for many.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#36
Del Paso said:
Where do you see a "cheap" lens? I don't see any. Certainly not Nikon's 800mm.
And nobody, especially a professional photographer, has money to waste...
And I hope an intelligent company like Canon knows that learning a lesson from time to time is a necessity.
There is a nice French expression for what Nikon did: "un pave dans la mare", in English something like "they threw a cobblestone into the pond".
Click to expand...
Duh, its a PF lens. Plastic fresnel molded onto glass. Its not rocket science. Do your research. Its not new technogy. Add plastic reduce the glass.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#38
1/3 plastic molded onto the glass. Doesn't take a genious to figure out the savings. Guess the photographer can deal with the subsequent lens flare in post. Admin comes up weird pricing analysis. Whats the price of that added polymer and less elements? Probably should be way less than what Nikon is charging for it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#39
tiggy@mac.com said:
Continue reading...
Click to expand...
I bunkered the money to get a state of the art big white as described for years now:
- switchable TC integrated
- light
- great IQ
- good close up performance
I turns out this lens to be black with a red ring. The prizing is OK, we get the adequate body including the lens within this prize range.

I would have thrown my money to a 400 with built in TC. And as a bonus this PF 800 as well. Now I have to check availability on the Nikon side.

Oh boy, Canon ....
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu