# New Nikon 70-200 Fail



## K (Oct 23, 2016)

$2,800? LOL. 

It remains to be seen whether this lens will meet, let alone beat the mighty Canon 70-200 2.8 II

Even if it has finally met it, it will do so at nearly $850 more. Ouch! $850 is a whole other premium pro lens.

Nikon "went full retard" (see Tropic Thunder) with the reversal of the zoom and focus rings, which will aggravate anyone who has a pro lineup of lenses. I can see wedding pros having a dandy time slinging a 24-70 and 70-200 with different zoom ring / focus ring positions.

I wonder if this lens has finally fixed the unacceptable focus-breathing issue of the VRII version? A 70-200 that only really does 70-135ish for headshots at $2,300 is a joke. Maybe this fixes that.

I suspect the optics will be solid. Sharp, clean, contrast, low distortion and all that. But again, at $2,800? We're not talking a special high end wide like the 11-24. This is a 70-200. That kind of money buys you a 11-24 which will open up options not possible with other glass. 

Canon has for all intents and purposes, the perfect 70-200 and does it for just under $2,000, and $200 less when rebate season is on.


----------



## j-nord (Oct 27, 2016)

Almost every time Nikon or Sony tries to compete with Canon's industry leading glass, they have to do so at a significantly higher price point, often with out even completely matching Canon's offering. A primary reason I shoot Canon: more glass, better glass, cheaper glass.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2016)

K said:


> $2,800? LOL.



If they sell, it's not a fail.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 28, 2016)

The current Canon version was_released_ at $2,500 USD in 2010. It's an almost seven year old lens now. With inflation ( http://www.usinflationcalculator.com ) that comes out to 2768 in today's dollars. So the Nikon is $32 more expensive. So yes. It is more expensive.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 28, 2016)

I don't really follow Nikon, but I'd be greatly surprised that a lens released today would *underperform* any equivalent lens that is 7 years old. 
I also would not be surprised to hear that Canon is working on a 70-200 IS 2.8 III and will release it in a couple few years at around $3,000. I'll move to Mars if they reverse the zoom and focus rings.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 28, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Almost every time Nikon or Sony tries to compete with Canon's industry leading glass, they have to do so at a significantly higher price point, often with out even completely matching Canon's offering. A primary reason I shoot Canon: more glass, better glass, cheaper glass.



+1. I have much more in glass than bodies.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 28, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> The current Canon version was_released_ at $2,500 USD in 2010. It's an almost seven year old lens now. With inflation ( http://www.usinflationcalculator.com ) that comes out to 2768 in today's dollars. So the Nikon is $32 more expensive. So yes. It is more expensive.



It may have come out at 2500 in 2010 but it sells for ~1800 now, not 2768 and the difference is significant! The latest f/2.8 zooms have come out for less than 2500 as well. The 24-70 came out at 2300 and the 16-35 came out at 2200, so I'm not convinced that a 70-200 f/2.8 IS III would start that much more than that. Nikon charging 3400 for their pc 19mm is even more outrageous!


----------



## brad-man (Oct 28, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > The current Canon version was_released_ at $2,500 USD in 2010. It's an almost seven year old lens now. With inflation ( http://www.usinflationcalculator.com ) that comes out to 2768 in today's dollars. So the Nikon is $32 more expensive. So yes. It is more expensive.
> ...



What do you suppose the price would have been if the latest 16-35 or 24-70 had included IS?


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 28, 2016)

brad-man said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



Not that much more, maybe a few hundred. The 100-400 II has IS and started around 2200 too. The 11-24 started at 3000, but that is more of a niche lens than the others. So Canon thinks that the sweet spot is between 2000 and 2500. Production costs are much lower than the list prices, so the price is really what marketing thinks the market can bear to maximize Canon's profit. Canon thinks that those prices are lower than Nikon's, for which I am grateful! There is also a much lower penalty for buying gray with Canon. Nikon won't service grays. Canon does, and also has a better refurb store. So Canon wins on price (on most lenses) and on serviceability.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 28, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > The current Canon version was_released_ at $2,500 USD in 2010. It's an almost seven year old lens now. With inflation ( http://www.usinflationcalculator.com ) that comes out to 2768 in today's dollars. So the Nikon is $32 more expensive. So yes. It is more expensive.
> ...


 *In 2010*, the lens (canon 70-200 2.8 is II) was brand spanking new, state of the art, cutting edge. Everything goes down in price after a while on the market. Now it's a lens that's getting on in it's production life. That's not to say it's a poor lens. On the contrary, I have one and it is fantastic. But the same lens released in 2018 would be even better, and cost more.
I agree with your main point- The Nikon lens is too expensive, but then, so is the Canon, which is almost the same price.
I might point out that the Nikkor 70-200 VR II still runs at $2100 vs the Canon which is at $1950, despite the Canon being a year newer. That might have been a more useful comparison to advance your point.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 28, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> *In 2010*, the lens (canon 70-200 2.8 is II) was brand spanking new, state of the art, cutting edge. Everything goes down in price after a while on the market. Now it's a lens that's getting on in it's production life. That's not to say it's a poor lens. On the contrary, I have one and it is fantastic. But the same lens released in 2018 would be even better, and cost more.
> I agree with your main point- The Nikon lens is too expensive, but then, so is the Canon, which is almost the same price.
> I might point out that the Nikkor 70-200 VR II still runs at $2100 vs the Canon which is at $1950, despite the Canon being a year newer. That might have been a more useful comparison to advance your point.



So you think a 70-200 f/2.8 IS III would start at 2800? Based on the more recent releases of the 24-70 f/2.8 II and 100-400 II, I don't think it'd start that high. The Canon can be found for less than 1800. You're point was that the 70-200 II should cost around 2700+, when in fact is much less than that. The 11-24 f/4 lens is more complex than Nikon's PC 19 and still came out at a lower price. The market was growing in 2010, now it's shrinking. I think Canon understands that it doesn't have pricing power when demand is falling. Nikon thinks otherwise.


----------



## IglooEater (Oct 28, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > *In 2010*, the lens (canon 70-200 2.8 is II) was brand spanking new, state of the art, cutting edge. Everything goes down in price after a while on the market. Now it's a lens that's getting on in it's production life. That's not to say it's a poor lens. On the contrary, I have one and it is fantastic. But the same lens released in 2018 would be even better, and cost more.
> ...



Arrrg, man am I bad at explaining things! 

No. no. no.* that *was never my point. My point is that the Canon *was* released at $2,700+ in 2010, *after* you calculate inflation. NOW it's an old lens, compared to the brand spanking new Nikon. 
Yes I do think a Mark III would be around 2800-3000. In 2018, that will be *less* than the Mark II was at it's release, after inflation.
No comment on the 19mm Tilt-Shift.


----------

