Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.7 #16 · 24 1.4 and 16-35 VR OFFICIAL! | |
davidnholtjr wrote:
Guess I'll stick with my light and handy Tamron 17-35.
Erik Moore wrote:
Me too. My Tamron is sharp as hell, cost me $225, and is super light.
Not knocking the Tamron at all, because it's a valid choice. But note that Nikon doesn't put lead weights into lenses to make them heavier... it's a stronger, more durable build with other differences, like usually much faster and more accurate AF, especially in low light. If there were really no difference or very little difference, then more people would go for the cheaper option... contrary to what you might think, most pros and people who buy $1300 lenses are not "suckers who are scared of third-party glass."
Your choice is valid. Your implication that other shooters are not qualified to make other choices intelligently, or that a $1300 alternative to a $225 lens can actually be well worth the money, is ridiculous.
|
And unfortunately there are those out there that obviously have too much money and that will jump immediately on the 'lists' for these, thereby giving Nikon the nod to keep it up. People such as those that think that $1260 is "not much more" than $700(mint 18mm fixed). Um that's close to 1/2....! As much as I dislike K. Rockwell these days, I sure hope he uses his notoriety to 'boycott' these too. 
, Nikon prices are just higher than Canon for lenses. Canon can have lower profit margins because their other product lines are cash cows. Given their resources, R&D and manufacturing costs might be lower as well.