Nikon is starting to tick me off

I attended Professional Photographers of America's annual convention in Nashville this week. When I picked up the required large badge hung from a lanyard, it was a CANON lanyard. Had to wear it for 4 days. Nikon was not represented in the trade show. Was constantly reminded of their absence by that lanyard. Canon reps led numerous shooting classes. Canon had a huge booth. Sigma was there, Fuji was there (with a $6k MF 50 mp digital camera not much bigger than a d850). Nikon, Bueller, Bueller? Now we have to wait months to get a d850. Charging $800 for a vertical grip and battery for the d850. The fact Nikon doesn't support gear including lenses over 10 years old doesn't sit well with me either. This convention is for pros. It felt like Nikon pros were being ignored, disrespected. Keep it up and there will be more white lenses floating about instead of the Nikon black.

Want to contrast that with Paul C Buff, ie, Einsteins/ Alien Bees. They were there. When you phone them, you get an english is their first language speaker answering who in turn transfers you with minimal if any wait to someone who is helpful answering your questions. Anyone else getting irritated with Nikon?

Nikon ticked me off when they stopped making the F3HP (fully professional film camera for those who don't know). Since then, the only things I've bought new from Nikon were 2 anti-fog viewfinder eyepieces for my F3HPs

A far cry from EPOI Days.

I've never run into a situation where a broken Nikon item that I owned couldn't be repaired or where parts were not available. I realize that for items that have been discontinued >10 years ago, parts may not be available. For example I heard that for the Noct-Nikkor and some AF-I telephotos some parts are not available any more. On the other hand, Canon announced that the first IS generation of 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 may no longer be repairable ("CPS can no longer guarantee that repairs will be possible because spare parts go out of supply.")

 

Qualifying For Canon Professional Services - Canon Europe

 

The second IS generation of the 300 and 400 was announced in 2010, so that's just eight years ago. So some of the first IS generation lenses are less than ten years old if they were purchased close to the launch of the second IS generation. In my opinion, for such expensive lenses, there should be lifetime availability of parts and repair.

 

Nikon reduced marketing resources abroad substantially because their sales have been declining and they needed to cut costs. Since most people now gets their product information from the internet, I can see how regional marketing personnel would be seen as an attractive place to make cuts. I am glad that they spend money on research and development instead of fairs.

 

I personally like Nikon better than before since they now make products that are better than they used to, and especially products that I care about such as tilt/shift lenses, a comprehensive range of f/1.4 primes with AF-S etc. Also the autofocus is much better than it used to be, and viewfinders have been improving as well. I realize that they may not be everyone's cup of tea. Personally my main concern now is that they introduce so many interesting lenses that I couldn't possibly keep up. In the early years of digital, their lens offerings were much more limited and compromised.

Anyone else getting irritated with Nikon?

Nikon shooter since 1979; not a professional photographer though and hence no experience with NPS.

Over the years, very little need to interact with Nikon Service - and when I had to, the experience was jarringly and disconcertingly negative. Last year, my 200-500 got eventually fixed - but it shouldn't have taken two attempts and the need for me to show up at Nikon Los Angeles in person twice (that's a 2+ hour drive one way each time).

 

Irritated by Nikon - quite a few times over the last few years. The saving graces were the D810, D500, 200-500 and 300/4E PF VR. Though with the A7RIII available now, I could see me replacing my Nikon FX system with Sony's. Not sure that would get me any better service though. And why incur the cost of switching if I am quite satisfied with what I currently have?

Edited January 18, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

Nikon shooter since the late '60's. Never had a Nikon fail, lens or camera, the most that was ever needed, as with my Leica, was a cla, I still have nearly every Nikon camera and lens I bought across all those years, and all work, the majority without service, having been well cared for. Flash forward - digital Nikons have been the same, ex a problem with the covering on the DF which I was able to have fixed, and the recall on the D 750, which was handled promptly and for free. What is lacking from former days is the superb customer interface - it is hard to get a response on line. Apparently, they have pulled back on trade shows as well. Unfortunate, but given the fine products, reliable performance, and still usable Investment in gear, I can't imagine going to another brand. I admit, the rumored FX mirrorless with new lens mount and adapters will have limited appeal.

I agree Nikon is providing great products. Cutting back on presence at a professional convention? How many $800 d850 vertical grips and batteries or $3000 bodies that they can't make fast enough to keep up with demand does it take to send a couple of folks to a convention and fund a booth? Canon was a huge presence. Even to just cater to their current users, we are not important enough? Sigma was there in force as was Fuji. I am used to the bodies layout, and love the 135 2.0 dc, but the Canon 135 not to mention the Sigma are pretty spectacular. I haven' t reached the point of bailing, am buying a d850 soon, but it would have been nice to get my hands on the new 105 1.8 and shoot it with my camera so I could see the bokeh for myself. Same with handling an 850, but then someone about to drop 4k on body and vertical grip isn't worth having a booth not to mention a couple thousand other pro nikon shooters in one spot for days.

Maybe I should add to my comment above - that if film cameras were to suddenly disappear, I WOULD buy Nikon DSLRs and lenses.

I've shot only Nikon since the '70s. Zero failures of anything ever. I've heard, no first hand knowledge, that Nikon is not a very large company. It would make sense that all their time and resources go into equipment design and manufacture, with little left over for expensive shows.

to get my hands on the new 105 1.8

That would be impossible - since the lens is a 105/1.4! Unless Nikon has announced an f/1.8 version too that I somehow missed.

I buy equipment based on how well it does the job I want it to do. Stroking of my ego by the company has very little to do with it. So far, I have had no problem getting 30 year and more older equipment fixed, so I have no problems with them.

Stroking of my ego by the company has very little

Ego has nothing to do with it (transference?) - product support does, both physical and informational. Trade shows, which I have both worked and attended in considerable number - critical for new products and customer contact. Being able to reach a knowledgeable professional in person, on the phone, on line, is the Gold standard, priceless. Not a great deal of that around anymore.

I'm a relative Nikon newbie, having switched from Canon in 2008 partly because their corporate policy ticked me off. Firstly in crippling the 300D (relative to the 10D) way more than was strictly required by the hardware, then in sitting on the update to the 5D for years until they were forced to update by the appearance of competition (rather than offering customers their best technology).

 

I'm generally well-disposed to Nikon, but their decisions do seem to be incredibly insular and lacking in the understanding of the needs of some of their customers. Sadly the same is true of much of the competition.

 

I don't always trust Nikon to execute on a plan (ahem, snapbridge), but they usually get the basics right. The sequence of shipments with failures (D800, D600, D750, D810, D500) is concerning, and encouraged me to delay buying with both the D810 and D850. I hope they're getting it under control.

 

Nikon probably have a big shift coming up with mirrorless. I'll worry about kicking them when I've seen how much of a mess they make of it.

Dieter, you are right, 1.4. After 4 days of classes and shooting running from 8 am to 10 pm, and little sleep, still recovering. Mixing Sigma's 135 1.8 with Nikons 105 1.4. No failures? Tell that to folks that had issues with newly released bodies over the last half dozen years that Sandy enumerated. Or the folks that have had repair delays. There were thousands of photographers and I would expect at least 1/4 are nikon shooters who purchase from the upper part of Nikon's entire product line.

Shouldn't a manufacturer at least show up so those folks can inspect the new products? Sandy nailed it,

 

With the disappearance of brick and mortar camera stores, having an opportunity to physically hold and test a new product is a wonderful part of a trade show. How many other $4000 products other than photo gear do you buy without seeing and trying it? It has nothing to do with getting an ego stroked, it has to do with customer service. Besides, with a photo ego the size of mine, I don't need any stroking. I think most folks on this forum think of them as supplying great products. I agree, I buy them on how they perform, but quality of a product is only part of a great company, service is also important. Hence my example of Paul C Buff and their einsteins level of service. Would you find it ok going to a restaurant that charges $150 for dinner for two to tell you to stand in line to place your order from a menu on the wall, put it on a tray and let you find a seat on some plastic chairs at a plastic table in a stark room acceptable? We do at McDonalds. I like my Nikon cameras but they are just a tool to me, part of my overhead. I am starting to feel that providing me good service is not a high priority. Now I could be wrong, but it seems like a developing pattern. I am one of those that believes the most important part of the camera is the 12 inches behind it and I can put mine easily behind a Canon.

I've had a low opinion of Nikon UK's 'service', or lack of, for years. My one positive experience was when I was sent a kit of parts to repair an F2A metering prism for only the postage cost. That would be about 1980. Since then it's all been a rapid downward slide into rudeness, delay and general lack of service.

 

All I'm seeing from Nikon Japan these days is an overpriced 'me too' of Canon products as far as lenses go. With almost no innovation since the 14-24 zoom Nikkor.

 

Their Tilt-shift range is just an echo of Canon's; except less versatile in design. Where's Nikon's initiative to fill real gaps in focal length range and genuinely innovate?

How are the 105/1.4, 28/1.4 or VR 24-70/2.8 "me too" products? Canon don't have any of those lenses. If we want to start seeing products as copied concepts from other manufacturers, arguably Canon 200-400 was a product they made to compete with Nikon's but they added a 4000€-5000€ teleconverter, so it is hardly the case that Nikon are the one who is especially pushing prices up; Sony and Canon are very much doing the same. There is a general tendency by the major players to move towards the higher end market as the sales of the consumer products fall. Although more expensive than the Sigma 85mm, the Nikon 105/1.4 is a bargain Compared to Sony 100mm or Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 lenses. Nikon have made a lot of original lenses and inventions over the years but there is some convergence and certain products are more popular than others and it is understandable that manufacturers often converge towards similar specifications.

 

Canon recently copied Nikon's 1:2 macro capability from the 85mm PC and 45 mm PC into their new TS-E lenses; Nikon have had this capability for many years. How is the 19mm PC less versatile in design than Canon's product? IMO Nikon did the right thing with their focal length choice, 17mm with shift applied often yield quite unnatural looking images. The 19mm PC is reported in some MTF tests and real world reports to be similar in sharpness to Canon's 24 TS-E II but as wider lens this is a more difficult achievement (and both are sharper than the 17mm TS-E at the outer areas of the frame). Personally I find the 20/1.8 better and more useful than the 14-24 in that the prime is smaller, lighter, faster, focuses much more accurately and maintains high contrast without ghosting when the point light source is hitting the front element from the side; I must have used it 20 times more often than the 14-24 and the only remaining application I had for the 14-24 which I can't always do with the 20mm (interiors with cropping to mimic shift) will be replaced by the 19 PC in time.

 

I would call this "tight competition" with an attempt to match and exceed the competitor's product rather than copying one lens from another. Often you can find subtle and not so subtle differences in results between the products of these competitors.

 

With the disappearance of brick and mortar camera stores,

 

If people often go to brick and mortar stores to play with gear and purchase that equipment then for the lowest price online, it is these people's fault that the brick and mortar stores are declining in number. However, I have one just 2km from my home and at least 5 who carry professional Nikon gear within 30min driving distance. I preferentially buy from stores who have a physical presence rather than online, but at times I do buy online, usually it is some smaller part which can be supplied quicker from an online store.

 

I always found trade fairs tacky as the reps there were smiling artificially and so obviously with the intention to sell, without all that much intimate knowledge of the equipment. I find more knowledgeable people online as well as some camera stores. Marketing reps didn't design the cameras and probably don't use them day in day out, so there are always those with more knowledge to be found.

 

I am starting to feel that providing me good service is not a high priority.

 

If the gear doesn't work and you can't get Nikon to fix it then by all means seek other companies' products.

 

In Finland my Nikon service experience has always been first rate. I believe some of the problems people have have something to do with attitude - one can sometimes get bad treatment if one attacks the service guy and tries to put blame on them or the manufacturer. In my experience if I am nice to them and polite, I've always received their best efforts back. I am not saying that Nikon customers haven't had real issues with Nikon service - I am sure there are those cases, but I also believe that how one behaves towards the service people plays a significant part in what kind of service you get. I realize Nikon USA seem to have placed a layer between the repair personnel so that you can't easily get in direct communication with them but I don't have such a situation in my country - I can just go there and talk to the person doing the repair if I request it and they happen to be in the office.

 

The sequence of shipments with failures (D800, D600, D750, D810, D500)

 

Regarding the D600, D800/E AF, I do know that there were people with real issues and some customers didn't get an appropriate response from Nikon. However those products came into market just after Nikon were hit by two major natural disasters in 2011, and also coincided with their greatest commercial success in terms of volume of cameras made and sold. I think in such a hectic situation mistakes can happen and I am at least willing to take an understanding attitude to Nikon's problems in that case. Afterwards the D750 also was reported with several issues, and sample variability in the 80-400 AF-S is reported, but the prevalence of issues generally in the product line is much less frequent now than it was in 2012. It seems they took corrective action and are doing better now. I haven't had any issues since the D800 which was a nightmare to fine tune with my fast primes. The D5 and D850 have been a breeze to fine tune and the AF results are excellent.

 

As for what "failures" there were with the D750, the shutter issue apart, the blocked light flare issue is largely a made-up complaint probably intended to bring Nikon's product down by whatever means possible (since it got blazing reviews). Canon's top model of the time was shown by dpreview to exhibit a worse case of such an effect but no one complained about it (illustrating the artificial nature of the "problem" and the double standard applied to Nikon vs. Canon). If you dig a bit you can find users with 1DX II complaining about substantial build up of oil/dust in a certain part of the sensor e.g. on the fredmiranda forum. This seems very similar to the D600 oil issue, except that with Canon, users just deal with it and continue to use the cameras. I really don't like it when people repeat the same complaints largely experienced by third parties over and over again in supposed evidence of Nikon's failures when evidence exists plenty that other manufacturers have similar problems. With regards to the D810's hot pixel issue at launch, Sony have been filtering out hot pixels at long exposures using a median filter or some such similar lossy filter, which cannot be turned off, and they have this in several cameras, leading to "missing stars" in night time pictures. So how is Sony's "star eater" effect preferable to Nikon's very temporary hot pixel issue which they fixed before anyone even had time to notice the bug? What bugs did the D500 have other than a dysfunctional Snapbridge? By the way I haven't had any significant issues with Snapbridge in the D850 and my iPhone, it works fine. I find it a splendid feature and a lot of fun for me and my friends who get almost real time updates of my best shots from some events that I shoot. Nikon had problems making it work at first, and they launched it probably before they should have, but the 2.0 version at least for me has been working fine. I hated the earlier wifi implementation in the D750 because every time I turned the camera off, the connection was lost, and I had to reconnect it from the camera and phone to initiate further transfers. The D850 sends files even while the camera is off so my habit of turning the camera on and off frequently has little impact on the transmission which is the way I like it. Arguably this is another innovation of Nikon's and although it at first was problematic it now appears to achieve its original goals of bridging the gap between the DSLR user and smartphone camera shooter's ability to send small images easily online. Canon seem to have copied it into their M6 mirrorless camera.

 

I can put mine easily behind a Canon.

 

I don't personally like their gear as much as Nikon's, however they have some lenses that I would've liked to have (now there is only 1-2 such lenses left). It seems Nikon have the edge in some areas whereas Canon in others. I could use Canon instead of Nikon but don't want to, and have no reason to.

 

Nikon probably have a big shift coming up with mirrorless.

 

I don't believe there will be a big shift but simply another competitor enters the crowded mirrorless camera market with a new product line. I don't like EVFs and have no intention of buying an EVF camera - if Nikon actually shifted focus from DSLR into mirrorless they would lose me as a customer.

I've had a low opinion of Nikon UK's 'service', or lack of, for years. My one positive experience was when I was sent a kit of parts to repair an F2A metering prism for only the postage cost. That would be about 1980. Since then it's all been a rapid downward slide into rudeness, delay and general lack of service.

 

Huh. It may be because they're close enough to my office that I turn up in person, but they've generally been polite and reasonably fast by the standards of my low expectations. They do seem a bit over-worked, and I've struggled a bit with them technically a couple of times (I'm fairly sure they scratched my D700's cover glass, although I only know that because they're the only ones who cleaned it and they told me it was scratched the second time I went, and I had a bit of a back and forth about the differentiation between distortion and field curvature), but they've seemed to be doing their best. With the possible exception of their tendency to ship things back to me irrespective of whether I've said I'll come and get it, but I've now accepted that's a logistical problem of theirs and just make very sure "do not post" is written on whatever I drop off. Sorry you had bad experiences.

 

All I'm seeing from Nikon Japan these days is an overpriced 'me too' of Canon products as far as lenses go. With almost no innovation since the 14-24 zoom Nikkor.

 

The 105 f/1.4 would look more innovative if Sigma hadn't been knocking it out of the park with some recent Art primes. Likewise the 200-500 vs the Sigma Sport version. The latest 70-200 and 70-300 seem pretty capable, though, and possibly the 300mm f/4 PF. There are a few areas I'd like to see them innovating in (or at least, doing what I told them...) but I assume they have something on their plate with mirrorless.

 

Their Tilt-shift range is just an echo of Canon's; except less versatile in design. Where's Nikon's initiative to fill real gaps in focal length range and genuinely innovate?

 

They seem to have caught up with the 19mm, but it's awfully expensive (and possibly less useful than Canon's 17mm). I'm disappointed that the rest of the tilt-shifts are somewhat inflexible, given the concept introduced by the Hartblei Super-Rotator years ago, and Samyang more recently. It took Canon a long time to get there too.

I am a newbie to Nikon since I only started in 1997 and at present have D810. Living in Vietnam I have had an excellent service by Nikon Saigon until a couple of months ago, whenthey insisted to have my camera for 2 weeks covering a repair, which takes 5 minutes – they have done the same repair 2 times previously. The eyepiece shutter lever stuck due the climate here – have since bought a drycabinet.

I am not living in Saigon but 9-10 driving each way from there.

if Sigma hadn't been knocking it out of the park

 

How is Sigma's offering "knocking it out the park"? Could you show some real world results that show this phenomena. Also I would prefer a comparison with similar focal length thank you very much.

 

Personally I dislike this abrupt super-sharp rendering of in-focus areas, the transition should be smooth and the effect look natural. To me 85mm Art images look a bit like what you get by selecting eyes with a mask and applying additional sharpening - I just don't like that look all that much. I prefer the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 for its lower weight, smaller size and more natural rendering. It's a normal size fast prime, the way I like them. I'd hate to have every lens doubled in weight.

 

possibly less useful than Canon's 17mm

 

Really? Have you looked at pictures from the 17mm? Personally I find the effect resulting from shifting that lens quite unpleasant to look at, even by professionals.

How are the 105/1.4, 28/1.4 or VR 24-70/2.8 "me too" products? Canon don't have any of those lenses.

 

Well, no. But Sigma has a very good 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/1.8, a 20mm f/1.4, 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 set (plus a 28mm f/1.8), and Tamron makes a very good 24-70 f/2.8 VR.

 

arguably Canon 200-400 was a product they made to compete with Nikon's

 

Oh, absolutely. But then Canon had a 400mm f/4 for a long time, which helped them. It's true the ranges will converge as people plug gaps. Maybe I should hope for Pentax becoming more popular so Nikon feel obliged to make some pancakes. (Mmm, pancakes.)

 

Thanks for the report on the T/S lenses, though. I've always meant to try to improve my options there, and a review is useful.

 

Personally I find the 20/1.8 better and more useful than the 14-24 in that the prime is smaller, lighter, faster, focuses much more accurately and maintains high contrast without ghosting when the point light source is hitting the front element from the side; I must have used it 20 times more often than the 14-24 and the only remaining application I had for the 14-24 which I can't always do with the 20mm (interiors with cropping to mimic shift) will be replaced by the 19 PC in time.

 

I use the wide end quite a bit. (Canon, of course, "copied" it with their 12-24 f/4.) I'd really like to see the field curvature fixed, though.

 

I would call this "tight competition" with an attempt to match and exceed the competitor's product rather than copying one lens from another. Often you can find subtle and not so subtle differences in results between the products of these competitors.

 

No argument there.

 

If people often go to brick and mortar stores to play with gear and purchase that equipment then for the lowest price online, it is these people's fault that the brick and mortar stores are declining in number. However, I have one just 2km from my home and at least 5 who carry professional Nikon gear within 30min driving distance. I preferentially buy from stores who have a physical presence rather than online, but at times I do buy online, usually it is some smaller part which can be supplied quicker from an online store.

 

I don't have many options near me, but I do try to buy at least smaller items (hopefully with a mark-up) in small stores when I can, and try not just to browse, at least when I'm interacting with staff. It's hard to argue with the price difference in some cases, though. Agreed that trade fairs tend to have a mix of the occasional tech (if you catch them) interspersed by a bunch of marketing people who can't actually answer questions.

 

Regarding the D600, D800/E AF, I do know that there were people with real issues and some customers didn't get an appropriate response from Nikon...

 

Nikon do seem to be improving, although the occasional bad story about the D500 was a worry (and I'm still curious about dpreview's report of bright spots on the D850). They seem to be taking the right steps to earn trust back. Canon have had their share of issues too, obviously. Certainly some issues were more significant than others, and none put me off the company. Sony's "star eater" effect is a significant issue in my interest in their hardware (although I think I heard the A7RIII is somewhat better).

 

What bugs did the D500 have other than a dysfunctional Snapbridge?

 

Occasional lock-ups. I didn't see it myself during my time with a hire one. I'd be happy with the camera if I were a DX shooter. As I've said before, I'm glad you're getting on with Snapbridge; it's just not useful to me without raw transfer to an actual computer (as an Eye-Fi can do), and Nikon's official accessory to do so is stupidly expensive. I'll experiment when I eventually get a D850.

 

I don't personally like their gear as much as Nikon's, however they have some lenses that I would've liked to have (now there is only 1-2 such lenses left). It seems Nikon have the edge in some areas whereas Canon in others. I could use Canon instead of Nikon but don't want to, and have no reason to.

 

Yes, there are areas where each system is stronger (and mostly the areas are small). Canon's f/1.2 lenses (quality aside) are one long-term area, and they have the on-sensor phase detect for video; on the other hand, Penikony still have a dynamic range advantage which is important to me.

 

(Mirrorless)

 

don't believe there will be a big shift but simply another competitor enters the crowded mirrorless camera market with a new product line. I don't like EVFs and have no intention of buying an EVF camera - if Nikon actually shifted focus from DSLR into mirrorless they would lose me as a customer.

 

Let's say Nikon will have a lot of work to do to make a mirrorless system, no matter what else they do with DSLRs. Possibly two mirrorless systems, depending on rumours. They're competing with established systems, so I'm assuming their development teams are busy trying to get a toe-hold. At least currently I prefer DSLRs too, but that doesn't stop me from having a feature list.

I'm not saying that Sigma Art lenses aren't great or that they aren't popular, just that I think they achieve their good results by ignoring the ideal of a reasonably compact lens; especially the 85mm f/1.4 Art is substantially larger and heavier than is conventional for this type of a lens. I believe that people buy them for the price and after a while they probably get tired of the weight. That's my guess at least. I would like to buy the 135/1.8 since Nikon make no equivalent but when I look at the weight I realize that I'd better wait for Nikon's 135mm update. I just don't need more lenses that are huge and heavy in comparison to conventional sizes for a lens of a given focal length and aperture. At least Nikon have been using PF and FL to make telephoto lenses more compact and lighter. I especially like the use of fluorite.

How is Sigma's offering "knocking it out the park"? Could you show some real world results that show this phenomena. Also I would prefer a comparison with similar focal length thank you very much.

 

I can vouch for how good the 50mm Art is, and I prefer it to the images I've seen from the f/1.4 Nikkors (and I preferred having f/1.8 lenses and money to owning those). I can only comment on tests and the images I've seen for the 85mm Art; I'll get one eventually. The Nikkor versions (AF-S/AF-D) have behaviour that stops them being of interest to me, even if they weren't expensive. Nikon's 135 f/2 lost me; the Sigma f/1.8 is much more interesting. I'd like it if both the longer Art lenses were a little bigger if it meant they could avoid the mechanical "cat's eye" bokeh vignetting, but they appear competitive with the 105mm Nikkor.

 

Personally I dislike this abrupt super-sharp rendering of in-focus areas, the transition should be smooth and the effect look natural. To me 85mm Art images look a bit like what you get by selecting eyes with a mask and applying additional sharpening - I just don't like that look all that much.

 

I've not noticed that, but I'll certainly look again. Transitions matter to me too.

 

Really? Have you looked at pictures from the 17mm? Personally I find the effect resulting from shifting that lens quite unpleasant to look at, even by professionals.

 

Again, I'll have a better look, if only to cure my envy. I'm reliant on tests that have been fairly glowing, but few places can do good tests of T/S lenses.

Agreed that smaller/lighter lenses have their place. It doesn't usually stop me from carrying around huge lumps of glass for optical quality, but at least having a smaller option is beneficial.

I can vouch for how good the 50mm Art is, and I prefer it to the images I've seen from the f/1.4 Nikkors

 

I agree that lens is better, so is the 35mm. My scepticism is towards mainly the 85mm for its seemingly excessive weight. I typically carry a bag of fast primes when I'm shooting in this manner and the total weight matters to me a lot. This often leads me to carry the 20/1.8 and 58/1.4 because they are two of my lightest fast primes. I know the 50 Art is sharper but I am satisfied with what I've got. The 28mm and 105mm suggest they are listening to people and noticed the changing trends (the 58mm and 35mm are examples where Nikon designers regard the smooth transition between in and out of focus areas more important than sharpness). However, I think for competing with the price of the Sigmas probably Nikon cannot do it.

 

As for the Paul Buff products, they are not available in Europe and the service is apparently limited to the USA. I know they ventured in the European market briefly but pulled back for some reason. I use Elinchroms at least they are substantially less expensive than Profotos, and have some advantages that matter to me personally. For example I use the Quadra Hybrid battery pack and head because the head is just 250g in weight and tiny; I can mount it using a clamp in some furniture and the light weight and small size of the head itself benefits me in this situation. I mount my hair light in this way. Alternatively if I want the hair light to come from a strip light from above the head of the subject (symmetrical lighting with one hair light), I can do it using a boom arm and the Quadra head. A Profoto flash would be much larger and require a more elaborate construction to hold in such a location. The Elinchroms have not TTL (Profotos do) but they've worked out most of the flash triggering reliability issues (by introducing external perturbation containing antenna and increasing the transmitter power) which I had before and they're more affordable than Profotos. I also have had good dealings with their local sales and service and they've been very helpful to me, figuring out the right tools that I might need. But the SB-5000's I find very reliable and practical for my location on-camera and remote flash uses. I am very keen to get more experience with Nikon's radio based flash system over time. At first I was reluctant to use it because I only had one camera body that supported it.

 

I guess regarding the 17mm TS-E, it is a matter of personal opinion, how much shift in such a wide angle is within good taste. I never liked the 14-24 at wider settings than 17mm and the 17mm TS-E's image circle is like that of a 10mm lens so when shifted you really enter some extreme territory. I like my 24mm PC but will get the 19mm for its flat field performance which should be an improvement for large buildings. The 24mm PC has a nice 1/2.7 maximum magnification ratio so it is a good lens for near-to-far shots but it is not as sharp as the Canon 24mm TS-E II or the Nikon 19mm PC. Neither 19mm nor the 17mm take a hood but I saw Erik Lund made a hood for the 19mm by cutting the hood of a a 17-35/2.8 fit it successfully to the 19 PC with no vignetting. I am concerned about the safety of using such a lens without any hood. I think a (partly home made) hood may be more feasible to use on the 19mm than on the 17mm. But generally my taste is such that the most extreme rectilinear wide angles do not have a place in my kit. If Nikon made a flat-field version of the 24mm PC I would prefer that to the 19mm but am willing to acquire and work with the 19mm if they do not make a new 24mm in time.

 

Regarding the availability of the D850 and grip, I was recently able to get both. I believe Nikon are doing well with this product but have planned everything for smaller volume just to be on the safe side. I think Nikon expect the decline to continue in the market unless proven otherwise.

Ilkka, I too am waiting on the up date to the Nikon 135. I am not so concerned about the weight, but the size of some lenses because they limit what fits in a bag that is the largest I like to carry for long periods or crowded areas. I like the Einsteins for specific reasons as well. Popping 6-10 times per second, flat line color, 250 watt modeling lamps, fully controllable from camera, on/off, brightness of modeling light for pupil size control, power including for groups like pairs of bg lights, 1/13,500 sec. fastest duration. Down side is 5lb weight. But since usually adding a box, that isn't necessarily as meaningful. I use heavy rolling stands so it takes care of the issues and for hair light have heavy boom arm and stand. They don't have something to allow attaching a 7' octa direct to a stand then hang the light off it so have rigged my own using a steel, not brass, stud threaded to fit the speed ring. That way, can leave it always up rolled against a wall taking little space.