When I buy a Nikon lens, the first copy works well. I don't have to return or resell multiple lenses in order to get a good copy; and because the lens works well, I rarely have a reason to sell it. Of course the used market is kind of thin...
I'm curious to see how Nikon's FF lens production keeps up over the next year or so. D700 demand was sort of trickle even before the disasters based on pent-up expectations for the next body. Based on the 30k-a-month production estimates of the D800 and 1+ million total units expected to sell worldwide, coupled with who-knows-how-many previously non-Nikon users coming over having to build up an entire Nikon FF collection...supply and demand will be interesting to say the least.
okafoja wrote:
I was shocked to find out how thin the used market is for Nikon shooters.
there is no way to sugar coat the fact that the used market for canon is immensely larger than nikon's. its so hard to track down various nikon glass, while it seems to rain L primes over in canon-land. however, to ME, the effort was worth it. while i was CONTENT with my canon setup, i am HAPPY with my nikon one. YMMV...
i just switched to nikon after years with canon and now i'm seriously considering going back. pertinent to this thread: the 24-120 focuses like a dog compared to the 24-105, and it has a really strong vignette. the 135 DC kinda sucks in comparison. soft, less contrast, less punch, slow to acquire AF.
people are selling the 24-105 most likely because they are buying 5d3 kits with the lens because they're what's available, and then selling the lens off. i did that several times when the 5d2 was hard to find without a lens.
to be fair the 24-120 F4 is not a pro lens, so putting it against canons L class isn't a fair comparison, it is still a great lens, nice & sharp.
The 135 is an older lens, a specialty lens at that, one that is due for an update. Different manufacturers have different ideas, why nikon doesn't have a distinct lens to compete against the 24-105 I don't know, but I imagine they have their reasons & thats good enough for me.
From a couple of articles I've read in the recent past, Canon/Nikon percentage of U.S professional sports shooters Are roughly 70/30 %. Landscape shooters is flipped 30/70% . .....however in Japan is a bit different....
I was shooting an NBA game in Phoenix and was talking with a photographer who is a staff photographer for the Tokyo Sports Press and he was telling me most people in Japan shoot Nikon...in fact he is the only shooter that shoots Canon at Tokyo Sports Press.....Just some trivia.
nswelton wrote:
i just switched to nikon after years with canon and now i'm seriously considering going back. pertinent to this thread: the 24-120 focuses like a dog compared to the 24-105, and it has a really strong vignette. the 135 DC kinda sucks in comparison. soft, less contrast, less punch, slow to acquire AF.
people are selling the 24-105 most likely because they are buying 5d3 kits with the lens because they're what's available, and then selling the lens off. i did that several times when the 5d2 was hard to find without a lens.
24-1?? lens is consumer lens. it is silly to judge system by it. 24-105L is sure better but canon have worse pro 24-70 then nikon and you can go on
I made the switch a few weeks ago and with a bit of determination I have a D800, 17-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 24-120VR, 70-200 2.8II, a few nice, light primes and a couple flashes that expose more consistently than my 580II's ever dreamed of. Of course as a collector of nice stuff in general I understand the concept of supply/demand, limited availability of high end/new release goods, high end used markets, etc. These phenomenon are not isolated to the camera world. It was worth the little bit of effort.
Regarding the 24-120, I also made the mistake of confusing the old, poor variable aperture 24-120 3.5-5.6VR with the new, crackin' 24-120f4VR. The base of my confusion was FM's own review database, where there are two entries for the old lens and no reviews on the new constant aperture version. I have the new version, and it produces sharp images with great detail on my D800. Here's my first sample/test shot on the combo:
Not on a D800 is my guess. Perfectly nice lens on a D700, though.
It works great on my D800 and it is listed as a recommended lens for the D800 by Nikon. I'm not sure why the need to speculate about a lens that you likely don't own and one that you even more likely haven't used on a D800.
Frankly, i trust the impartiality of FMer Roger Cicala, owner of lensrentals.com more than I do Nikon's marketing department. Their list includes the 105 Micro and if you look at the Imatest numbers at non-Macro distances, it doesn't impress, corroborating Bjørn Rørslett's poor opinion of it. Not on Nikon's list is the venerable 17-35 which did quite nicely on center sharpness but they're more eager to sell newer lenses.
You can post any number of great photos from the 24-120 but this only proves it can deliver at CERTAIN focal lengths or in narrow ranges. That's what generally separates a consumer zoom from a pro model, which the 24-120 simply isn't.
okafoja wrote:
I could not find a used 24-120VR f4 but Canon 24-105 is all over the place. I tried looking for a used Nikon 16-35VR or 17-35/2.8 again nothing in sight. Even Nikon 24-70 is out of sight
Yes, it's a famous Nikon problem — bad supply. Agree with this statement.
No Nikon equivalent to Canon 50L, 85L and 135L. As a matter of fact Nikon has nothing serious on 50mm which is my most used focal length.
Nikon has 50 mm f/1.2 and 58 mm f/1.2, both are manual focusing and sharp as hell from f/2 onwards. Also, Nikon filled a patent for both 50 mm f/1.2 G and 135 mm f/1.8 G which will be released very soon (2012-2013 timetable). As for 85 mm, I feel pity for your ignorance, because 85 L II is one of the most overrated lenses ever. Surely, it is sharp and features fast aperture, but also is turtle slow, boring as hell and brings ugly specular highlights with cut at edge. With all honesty, I don't like rendering style of Nikon's 85 mm counterparts, but in this respect 85 mm f/1.4 G is much, MUCH funnier. Though, I'm aware that Canon filled a patent for new 85 L version, so we'll see what it will bring.
As for other 50 mm's, Nikon has the state of the art 50 mm f/1.8 G which is unbeatable at price/performance ratio. Try it and you'll be surprised how awesome it is (for the price of just slightly more than $200): it features brisk AF, it is sharp throughout the whole image field and also is outstanding at flare resistance. What else do you need?
Also, Nikon lens naming is confusing as hell. Each lens has over 4 to 5 different versions D, G, AIS, AI and so on. I am so confused my head is beginning to spin like crazy.
That's purely your fault. Nobody cares about someone's ignorance and despise for learning. Nikon didn't screw up its customers in late 1980's by throwing off the bayonet and huge range of legacy lenses like Canon did. You are free to mount almost any lens from 1959 to present day without needing to dance shaman dances (replacing rear of the lens from FD to EF and having at last mirror clearance issue). Learn the history or GTFO.
In fact buying anything Nikon is bad news compare to Canon.
Thank you for reporting us that! We couldn't live without your concrete opinion.
I'm so glad that I'm only trying to add D800 to my Canon equipment. I feel sorry for those who are switching to Nikon. It will be a nightmare.
Don't feel sorry for us, the grass is greener on the Dark Side. Sincerely yours, former Canon user.
I can't imagine not shooting with 50L, 85L and 135L.
Why bother at all and waste your money then? Oh, wait, you're just an ugly Canon troll!
j.liam wrote:
Frankly, i trust the impartiality of FMer Roger Cicala, owner of lensrentals.com more than I do Nikon's marketing department. Their list includes the 105 Micro and if you look at the Imatest numbers at non-Macro distances, it doesn't impress, corroborating Bjørn Rørslett's poor opinion of it. Not on Nikon's list is the venerable 17-35 which did quite nicely on center sharpness but they're more eager to sell newer lenses.
You can post any number of great photos from the 24-120 but this only proves it can deliver at CERTAIN focal lengths or in narrow ranges. That's what generally separates a consumer zoom from a pro model, which the 24-120 simply isn't....Show more →
Frankly, I trust my own results rather than reading reviews, if a particular lens provides great potential utility to me like the 24-120f4VR. And fortunately the 1st copy I bought performs remarkably at most focal lengths, considering its zoom range. I had 3 copies of the Canon 24-105L and my 24-120 performs similarly to my best copy of that lens in that range.
"When I buy a Nikon lens, the first copy works well."
Interesting. The reason I switch to Canon, after being a Nikon user for 20+ yrs., was just the fact that all lenses: 12-24, 85, and 24-70 were defective. The wide zoom was fixed, but never met my expectations, the 85 was in repair 3 times . After 3rd repair was declared "meeting Nikon specs." and the first 2 samples of the newly introduced mid range zoom were retained by Nikon while 3rd sample delivery promised. By the time it was available, 8 months after getting the camera, I gave up on Nikon. These were ALL new lenses! For me it was a big financial loss and disappointment.
I had some problems with Canon lenses, but Canon response was professional and fully satisfying. No "it meets our spec." nonsense.
It looks like there are many cases when "the first copy" not always works.
I'm still with Nikon but I've had similar experience with my new lenses; 24-70 had to have its AF motor replaced right off (now its spectacular), 14-24 just isn't "there" after a visit to Nikon (going back again--?decentered elements), 24 is going back too, 70-300 needed a fine adjustment of +11 to achieve acceptable results and only an 85D was spot-on roght out of the box.
What I have learned with Nikon is that if you want something, and it becomes available for sale, you need to just buy it and add to your gear. Don't think too much, or feel "now the shortage is over." Because the product will disappear again for another six months. There seem to be constant shortages of the quality Nikon cameras and lenses. But they then suddenly become available again for a limited (brief) amount of time.
One thing is for sure, don't expect wide availabilty of the D800 or D800E anytime in the next six months, or possibly a year, for general purchase. Unless you are in daily search mode. Searching the inventories of the reputable big name dealers or mom & pops on a daily basis, and get lucky hitting them just at a brief right slice of time when they have a unit or two that's unclaimed by a pre order. At this point the backorders most likely extend far into the future and the dealers have an obligation to those customers on their wait lists first.
ChrisDM wrote:
Frankly, I trust my own results rather than reading reviews, if a particular lens provides great potential utility to me like the 24-120f4VR. And fortunately the 1st copy I bought performs remarkably at most focal lengths, considering its zoom range. I had 3 copies of the Canon 24-105L and my 24-120 performs similarly to my best copy of that lens in that range.
Then you're a lucky guy with a great copy that meets your needs. But the reality is that these are pricey tools and most folks will rely on reviews to eliminate the chafe before renting or buying. With numbers like Roger posted, even accounting for sample variation, why bother?
Vilhelm Sjostrom, a pro shooter from Finland who posts at mflenses.com and often gets preview equipment to test long before others, recently wrote that, "I already pissed off half a dozen of 24-120/4G VR owners on Flickr when I pointed out that the 24-120/4G VR is a Holga with vibration reduction when coupled with a D800".
