Nikon Glass 21% more $$ then equivalent Canon?

[vince321]

After researching for some time, I began to lean towards purchasing the Nikon d300 over the Canon 40D. Canon glass is more familiar to me and I assumed the price between the two would be somewhat equal.

To my surprise, the Nikon glass is much more expensive. Unless, I'm not seeing the Nikon equivalent?

For instance, at some point, the perfect setup for me would be:

Canon
10-22 $674.95
24-70L 2.8 $1059.95
70-200L IS 2.8 $1659.95
Total: $3394.85

Nikon
12-24 $919.95
24-70 2.8 $1699.95
70-200 2.8 VR $1639.95
Total: $4259.85

Difference, $865.00 or 21%. Add the $500 extra for the Nikon body and it equals $1365.00 extra for the Nikon setup.

Am I seeing something wrong, or is this pretty much standard issue for Nikon gear? I don't think the D300 is worth $1365 over the 40D?

 

[DSLR noob]

Well I don't know the answer, but picking what lenses you'd get for each system you're looking at and totaling the prices SHOULD be the way someone picks a system, VERY smart shopping.

 

[JIP]

I have to say that really surprises me because it has always been my experience in the past that Canon glass was more expensive.

 

[Johnboy2978]

picking what lenses you'd get for each system you're looking at and totaling the prices SHOULD be the way someone picks a system, VERY smart shopping.

The problem is that most people don't have a clue as to why $1k lenses cost $1k when they start out much less which lenses would be good for what they are shooting when they are starting out. I know I wasn't exactly sure why there was such a price differential between a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/3.5-5.6 when I took this hobby up. I knew it had to do w/ build quality and better optics, but I couldn't have explained about aperture/shutter speed, etc when I started out. They base their decision on how much money I've got in my pocket right now, and how much camera I can get today with it. It's all about immediate gratification and less about research and doing things right the first time.

I agree this is smart research

 

[Mike_E]

The majority of the difference seems to be from the 24-70mm to the tune of $640.00.

The 24-70 is being brought out for the D3 and may (I'm guessing here) not be what you really want because of the crop factor- 36-105mm. Check out the 17-55mm f2.8 and rethink whether or not you really want the extra 5mm for $919.95.

 

[TCimages]

Yes, Nikon is more expensive for pro glass.

 

[vince321]

The majority of the difference seems to be from the 24-70mm to the tune of $640.00.

The 24-70 is being brought out for the D3 and may (I'm guessing here) not be what you really want because of the crop factor- 36-105mm. Check out the 17-55mm f2.8 and rethink whether or not you really want the extra 5mm for $919.95.

I agree. The 17-55 is nice and seems to be the perfect walk around lens. So, I checked it out. The Canon 17-55 2.8=979.95 and the Nikon 17-55=1219.95. Pretty much a 20% difference.

This just surprises me. I actually like the Nikon body better, but am having a very hard time justifying the up charge for comparable glass.

 

[vince321]

Yes, Nikon is more expensive for pro glass.

Not just more expensive, but way more expensive. Unless the Nikon glass is significantly better, the 20% premium is substantial. It's hard to imagine how two very competitive companies could offer their premium product at such a difference in price.

My question for Nikon users is this: Why are you willing to pay more for a comparable product? Do you feel that the body justifies the up charge in glass prices? I think from a glass perspective, the pro level Canon and Nikon, from an IQ perspective is pretty much equal? Possibly this assumption is incorrect?

Finally, I'm just trying to figure out why a person would purchase the D300. This was my original choice, but at the end of the day body's will change, but glass is long term. It just isn't computing.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Two reasons I shoot Nikon:

My first SLR's and lenses I got for cheap, and they were Nikons and a Nikkors, so making a switch wouldn't make financial sense.

The operation of Nikons have always made more sense to me in comparison to Canon's, ESPECIALLY when comparing the 1D's and the D2's. I have no understanding why the 1Ds Mk II requires two hands to operate just to go through LCD menus, it gets in the way of shooting.

 

[itoncool]

My question for Nikon users is this: Why are you willing to pay more for a comparable product? Do you feel that the body justifies the up charge in glass prices? I think from a glass perspective, the pro level Canon and Nikon, from an IQ perspective is pretty much equal? Possibly this assumption is incorrect?

Finally, I'm just trying to figure out why a person would purchase the D300. This was my original choice, but at the end of the day body's will change, but glass is long term. It just isn't computing.

I'm a Nikon user.

First, about the lens, you have to define what is the meaning of COMPARABLE PRODUCT to you? Because maybe we are not in the same boat.

Second, about the body, I agree glasses die harder, but in digital era IMAGE SENSOR takes a large portion too beside lenses to determine the result. Is it overtaken by the latest technology in the newer body? ALWAYS!
but, at which level is highest enough to make a buy for you and how long would you wait? It depends on the person. ME? I doubt I will get the D300 but I'm pretty sure I will get the D3 instead... My personal preference

 

[JerryPH]

Location from where prices are taken is also a MAJOR factor.

Are you using full suggested retail prices? Not realistic, becuase most please will discount and some places online will discount heavily.

I find it is often more specific model or retailer specific as to which one is more expensive (Canon vs Nikon).

The newer stuff is always the most expensive... thanks to the law of supply and demand.

 

[XJBaylor]

I think the prices he has quoted are pretty accurate. I might recommend the following:

12-24 - Go with the Tokina. Better build (slightly) and major problem is CA, which is easily correctable if shooting RAW. Actually sharper at f/4.
24-70 - Consider either the 17-55 (great focal length range) or the 28-70, which can typically be found cheaper, or even used, if that is something you are ok with.

 

[vince321]

The prices quoted are from Adorama. They compete pretty much with B&H and I believe are a reputable place.

I have given some thought to the Tokina and Sigma wide angle. This would certainly save a bunch of money. I typically don't like third party lenses because of focusing issues, but because this is a WA lens and would primarily be used for landscape photography, focus speed shouldn't be an issue.

Finally, if there are some recommendations for stores or websites that sell Nikon glass at a better price, please let me know. At the end of the day, my decision is difficult because I "want" the Nikon, but realize the practical decision is to move forward with the Canon system. It's a big decision because I don't see myself changing in the future.

Thanks for the insight, all of the opinions here are appreciated.