Like the $13,999 price for the Canon 800mm f/5.6 lens is any less funny?
Nikon is not likely to make any money on the 800mm lens as it is. They are charging what they think they need to charge based on how many they expect to sell and how much it cost to bring the lens to market.
If you shoot Canon, you don't need try and create a controversy. If you shoot Nikon, don't buy if the price is offensive to you.
Haha, this is the exotic of the exotics. It's like jumping on a car forum and saying "Gee, look at the price of the new Lamborghini. What a rip off. I'm not going to buy that".
Danner wrote:
It seems nuts when you compare it to a 400 or 600 + TC?!??
Yes?
Please, post some shots of the 800mm f/5.6 compared to the 400 or 600 + TC.
What's that? You can't? Because you have no idea what the image quality is going to be like? Because this is all just armchair speculation about a lens that isn't available for sale yet? Ahh, yes.
Is $18k a lot of money? Sure it is. How, precisely, would you like to judge the value of something you haven't seen, touched, or viewed samples from?
Danner wrote:
It seems nuts when you compare it to a 400 or 600 + TC?!??
That's what I thought too - until the MTFs were pointed out to me. If they hold in real world testing, it looks like the 800 with the TC is actually sharper than my 500 without one. If I can find a way to afford one, I'll be making a purchase (again, if the MTF numbers hold up)
This discussion ignores the fact that lenses like this are rarely purchased outright.
Rent it when you need it. Funny that people think you actually have to buy lenses like this. Nobody buys e.g. a $50k Phantom Flex camera unless they do a lot of super slow motion work. Most tools in this price range are rentals and you pay the $2k a day when you have a job that justifies it.
Same with this type of lens - for most potential users it is a special purpose lens, so it is more economical to rent it it when you need it, for example to take shots like this (yes, that's taken with the Canon, but same idea): " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Moonwalk
Remember the Canon Canon 1200mm f5.6? A $90,000 36 pound lens available in the 90s? I saw one in use once, at the start of the Indy500, shot by an agency guy. I think it was Allsport or Getty and he told me it was the only one owned by the agency. I think the $18k for the Nikkor only raises a discussion because it is almost close to something people may actually be able to afford, but it is already borderline exotic pricing. If it was priced at $50k, nobody would lose any sleep over it.
This thread has a trollish quality to it... a Canon shooter expressing an opinion about a Nikon product. Surprising how many folks feel this needs to be pursued.
Now, THAT's REALLY FUNNY.