p.4 #1 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses
One doesn't have to be "really exotic" for this lens to make a good investment, although one does have to be oriented toward the right parts of the market. I sell individual prints for $500+ (customer chooses any size or color treatment, and can be reprinted to a different size/color at will and at cost), and each image is sold only in a numbered series of 100 prints... no image of mine will ever be on more than 100 pieces of paper simultaneously. And I so not sell or provide anything smaller than a 20x30.
I didn't have to do any of that. I'm certainly no Ansel Adams, Galen Rowell, Paul Bowen, or Jim Wilson... my images don't need to be numbered because they're so rare. I number them and limit the printing quantities for the opposite reason: because artificially limiting production gives the customer an increased sense of value and allows the customer to pay me more for a print, happily.
To me, the 800/5.6 question is simply: am I likely to sell 40 additional prints that I would not have sold if I were carrying the 500/4 because I got the 800? If so, then it's a slam-dunk good investment, even though I'm only a "semi-pro" photographer.
p.4 #2 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses
MarcG19 wrote:
Unfortunately, I have to say "yawn". I was notionally interested in the 18-35 back when I was thinking of going FX, but AFAIC the price is insane, though not as insane as the 24-85VR. Hopefully, though, it'll be much better than the last 18-35 3.5-5.6 or whatever it was.
I don't think the price for the new 18-35 is insane as long as it is substantially better than the current AF-D model (which is pretty bad in my experience). The price for the 24-85VR IS insane in my opinion primarily due to the fact that it is no better than the previous non-VR version and in fact in some regards it has worse optical performance. The only "gain" was VR in my opinion, which is not worth the price for a mediocre lens (I have both versions and have compared them extensively, perhaps I got a VR-version dud, but my experience is in line with most others').
I don't mind paying this kind of price if the optical quality is excellent, even if it's not a fast aperture nor a constant aperture.
One other note on the 18-35 - for me it's not just how sharp it is, but also how well it handles flare and ghosting. As a landscape guy I have the sun in the frame a lot and I really don't like lenses that flare and ghost all over the place - we'll have to see with this lens. Perhaps I will place an order and try it out myself . . . .
p.4 #4 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses
I highly doubt that the 600+1.7 IQ would be similar to the 800+1.25. Gosh I hope not as the IQ from former combo is barely usable at all.
Steve Perry wrote:
Yes, but a V1 isn't in the same league as say a D4 or D800 either. My point is that I think the quality would be very similar with a 600 + 1.7 as it would with an 800 and it's TC on an FX body. However, as I mentioned, I'd still love to have the 800!
p.4 #7 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses
Not at all, on the contrary.....we are just trying to make a non-partizan assessment of the impact which Nikkor 800 might have on Canon's new lens development.
p.4 #14 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
One doesn't have to be "really exotic" for this lens to make a good investment. [snip]
True that. I could totally see a business case for this. I should have said "pros who really need long reach".
jhinkey wrote:
I don't think the price for the new 18-35 is insane as long as it is substantially better than the current AF-D model (which is pretty bad in my experience). The price for the 24-85VR IS insane in my opinion primarily due to the fact that it is no better than the previous non-VR version and in fact in some regards it has worse optical performance. The only "gain" was VR in my opinion, which is not worth the price for a mediocre lens (I have both versions and have compared them extensively, perhaps I got a VR-version dud, but my experience is in line with most others').
I don't mind paying this kind of price if the optical quality is excellent, even if it's not a fast aperture nor a constant aperture.
One other note on the 18-35 - for me it's not just how sharp it is, but also how well it handles flare and ghosting. As a landscape guy I have the sun in the frame a lot and I really don't like lenses that flare and ghost all over the place - we'll have to see with this lens. Perhaps I will place an order and try it out myself . . . .
Well said. We'll see about its quality - maybe I was just thinking about the old 18-35D whose used price is somewhere in the $2-300s IIRC. I also forgot about the price of a new 16-35VR is.
And actually, I was being hypocritical in that post, now that I think about it. I was thinking of getting a Voightlander 20mm f/3.5, and would pay up to the 4-500 range for new Nikon FX AF wide primes. I paid full price for new NIkon 10-24, Tokina 11-16 and Olympus 12mm f/2. But the last two are stellar lenses. The NIkkor ought to be similar to at least the 10-24 in optical quality.
Moreover, if the recent past is any guide, patient US customers might get a $1-200 rebate come summer time.
p.4 #15 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses
Keith B. wrote:
Yes, I do have 18,000 dollars and no, I don't plan to spend it on that.
Unless you are a professional photographer with a big business and a big income, the investment of $18,000 in this lens is insane. I suppose that this is a lens for a limited number of sport and wildlife professional photographers who can deduct the investment from their taxes.
I do have three (relatively) expensive long lenses (300mm f/2.8, 200-400mm f/4 and 600mm f/4) and I would love to try the 800mm but I won't pay that amount for the lens.
p.4 #16 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
...
To me, the 800/5.6 question is simply: am I likely to sell 40 additional prints that I would not have sold if I were carrying the 500/4 because I got the 800? If so, then it's a slam-dunk good investment, even though I'm only a "semi-pro" photographer.
Actually unless the lens is ruined by the time you sell 40 additional prints, then this really doesn't apply. I used to think OMG these big lenses are so costly (and of course they are), but what we tend to forget is unlike bodies they retain their value for many years or even appreciate. I remember selling my 300 VR-I three years later for $50 less than I paid for it new. So I shot it for three years for $50, you can't beat that with a stick. Based on history and assuming there isn't some fundamental change that makes lenses worthless... it's unlikely this lens will loose even 50% of its resale value over ten years so recovering the cost of the lens is easy.
So for me it's:
do I have the cash to purchase that isn't needed elsewhere
can I make use of the lens
will I eat the cost and depreciation for sheer enjoyment or will I try to recover cost through print sales
am I willing to gamble that it will hold value over the long run as large lenses have in the past
and yes I was expecting more like 14k too. 18k... um well not sure about that one.
p.4 #18 · Nikon announced 18-35mm and 800mm F/5.6 lenses
Good day, lads......I would just like to say that you shouldn't hesitate to contact us at the FM DSLR Technolgy Consultants Headquarters for any sort of info or clarification related to the Nikkor 800.
