Nikkor Z 24mm f1.8 S

Is available pre-order at

 

Calumet EU Є1200

Park Cameras UK £1050

B&H US $997

 

By today's exchange rate $:£ at 1.23, and $:Є at 1.1, I feel £811 is more 'friendly' along with Є907!

 

One day I may understand Nikon's pricing policy, but I doubt it.

20% VAT, possibly 6.7% import duty (quick check, could have that wrong), 997->£1037. Plus shipping costs. That's a small difference - and the exchange rate fluctuates quite a lot (especially just now).

Around 2001/2002, once I was reading a British photo magazine at the newsstand here in California. All the advertised prices had numbers that made a lot of sense to me, except the unit of currency was the Pound instead of the US$. Back then 1 Pound was like US$1.5, 1.6.

20% VAT, possibly 6.7% import duty (quick check, could have that wrong), 997->£1037

I'm not suggesting they're coming from the States!

 

The 'oddity' is you can buy stuff in some US states at the actual marked price.

 

So the advertised B&H price of $1000 can be actually bought and carried off for a 1000 bucks.

 

...and bizarrely it's $1300 in Camera Canada!

Edited October 2, 2019 by mike_halliwell

The reason for the price difference is that the Europeans are paying high taxes and duties, and the American stores are selling it untaxed. Soon B&H will start collecting sales tax on shipments to most states, but those will be in the 5-7% range.

B&H is already collecting sales tax, for California it is around 9%, even higher in some counties and cities. But B&H has this Payboo card to offset it.

Pursuant to a recent decision by the US Supreme Court, companies are required to collect state sales tax, even if they don't have a physical nexus in that state. B&H and others are complying with that decision. Not all states have a sales tax (e.g., Oregon). It's not worth driving 1700 miles each way just to have a drop box in that state. If you live in Seattle (10.5%), you might consider it. Nothing in the US comes close to a 17-20% VAT plus local taxes and import duty. There is no import duty for importing cameras and lenses to the US.

B&H is already collecting sales tax, for California it is around 9%, even higher in some counties and cities. But B&H has this Payboo card to offset it.

I got a notice today that they’re about to start charging tax in MA and will be charging it in 30-something states in a few days. Apparently the states have to formally request each retailer collect the tax.

Not all states have a sales tax (e.g., Oregon). It's not worth driving 1700 miles each way

 

So, I'm guessing it's naughty to simply post it from Oregon to, say, Miami.?

If we're going to talk unreasonable prices, my go-to is the WT-7A, which is $750 at B&H and £1100 in the UK. I've no idea why, but it's certainly not an impulse purchase.

unreasonable prices

Yup, pop a decimal place in there and people might actually buy one!

Yup, pop a decimal place in there and people might actually buy one!

There isn't a whole lot of difference among $750, $750.0 and $750.00. :confused:

Nah, I meant $75 or £110!

 

Guess I meant MOVE the decimal place....:oops:

Of course, the decimal convention is regional. I worked at a company selling $16,000.00 rendering hardware, and we once had someone wanting to buy one for $16 (because the decimal point in his country was a comma). We didn't take his interpretation of the price.

Back to the lens?

No matter what the currency, over a grand for a modestly specified 24mm f/1.8 is just unreasonable.

 

It seems like only last week I paid about the same for the 14-24 zoom Nikkor shortly after it came out. Now that was a bit of a bargain in hindsight.

 

So I don't care if the 24mm f/1.8 Z lens is the best 24 ever made (which I'm pretty certain it won't be). It's 'only' f/1.8, and that doesn't warrant such a steep price.

The reason? The Brit like someone in this forum has more money.

So I don't care if the 24mm f/1.8 Z lens is the best 24 ever made (which I'm pretty certain it won't be). It's 'only' f/1.8, and that doesn't warrant such a steep price.

Some people may care, especially if they have the 45 MP Z7. For some, a 24 mm is the lens that stays on the camera. Highly corrected lenses cost more, and more of them is expected than for film or DSLRs.

 

I have a good 24-70/2.8 zoom and a couple of f/2'ish 25's, manual and AF. Each has it's place, but for landscapes and architecture, a good prime is the lens of choice.

The reason? The Brit like someone in this forum has more money.

 

If BeBu is making a traditional dig at me, he really has a delusion about my having any money (I'm still paying off my D850, for a start, and I'm in no rush for a Z series). I also paid less than a grand for my 14-24, having acquired it in the US a decade ago, when the exchange rate was a lot more favourable than it is these days.

Some people may care, especially if they have the 45 MP Z7.

You have to remember that megapixel numbers go up with the square of any real resolution increase. So the difference between a D800E/D810 at 36 Mp and the latest 42/45 Mp sensors ain't really that great. Certainly not the apparent 25% increase that the megapixel numbers would seem to indicate. The real linear resolution increase is from just over 100 cycles/line-pairs per millimetre, to around 114. Barely stretching the capability of lenses that worked perfectly well with the 'old' 36 megapixel sensors.

 

I'm not forgetting pixel-shift technology either. That only works with static subjects and a tripod-mounted camera.

The Nikon D800 hardly counts, as it had an AA filter in both versions. I've had the opportunity to try a number of Nikon DSLR lenses on a Sony A7Rii, and they don't hold up compared to native lenses, with the possible exception of the 55/2.8 Macro. It takes a lot of attention to detail to achieve sharpness at the pixel level with that camera, even with the best lenses.

 

Resolution is not the only measure of a lens. Chromatic aberration is the nemesis of DSLR lenses, and to rid of that takes more elements (and cost). Linear distortion is another factor. While it can be dialed out in processing, some lenses still fare better than others. Flare and sun spots are other artifacts which are better controlled in modern, mirrorless lenses. Bokeh and build quality are subjective attributes, but something to consider. Some lenses just feel better in the hand than others.

 

Resolution in terms of line pairs doesn't adequately describe the performance of high resolution digital sensors. I refer you to the difference between continuous and discrete Fourier functions. There is no gradual reduction in contrast, as with film or virtual lens measurements. A pixel is either one or the other, and the line of demarcation between chart resolution and aliasing is relatively narrow. It is fairly easy, with the right optics, to capture objects only a single pixel wide, including spider silk at a distance, or the image of a star. It doesn't take much astigmatism or coma to spoil that party.

Well, let's just wait until the lens is a physical reality in some fool's hand before we laud its merits shall we?

 

It could be stellar, or not. Quite frankly I'm getting a bit tired of pixel-peeping at every new lens and want to see a few really good pictures. That's what it's about, isn't it?

It doesn't take much astigmatism or coma to spoil that party.

 

Considered from the opposite point of view, that isn't always such a wonderful thing. Sure, if you want to mortgage your first child Sony or Zeiss (now joined by Nikon and Canon) will happily sell you a new mirrorless lens that will pick out the silk strand of a spiderweb from 50 feet away. But that exacting, taxing sensor means you are effectively limited to a relative handful of expensive cutting-edge lenses, many with secondary physical and optical characteristics that are less than desirable. Which is why not everyone is jumping for joy over the prospect of 50MP and 60MP becoming the next Sony-Nikon standard.

 

And while we're on the subject of aberrations, lets not forget Sony itself has a huge hand in those due their ill-conceived, inexcusable decision to blight the A7 series with a ridiculously thick sheet of plate glass over the sensor. Talk about pissing in the punchbowl- a good number of nicely-performing pre-mirrorless lenses are kneecapped by this cover glass, even more so than on other cameras with similar sensors. It is a mystery why Sony felt it necessary to rip the Kevlar cashier guard from a liquor store and apply it to the A7 sensors: all it accomplishes is diminishment in utility of existing lenses.

 

Obviously, Sony and its partners incorporate the redundant cover glass thickness into their new premium lens designs, so the issue evaporates as long as you toe the line and stay with the latest OEM optics. Technology evolves and camera companies are in the business of selling new lenses. But as the sensors become increasingly hostile to lenses designed more than two years before them, the treadmill becomes less avoidable, we lose some artistic choices, and our tool range grows ever smaller. The new "hi-res" lenses don't always deliver on all counts, either: the dismal field curvature and dead-eyed, lifeless imaging of some recent releases undercuts their improved acuity and low chromatic aberration.

Edited October 9, 2019 by orsetto

I understand that you don't like Sony cameras, but you need to insert a few facts into your diatribe.

 

The "ridiculously thick" cover glass is an IR cut filter, which keeps black black, among other things. Leica introduced the M8 with a 0.8 mm filter which passed so much IR, that users were obliged to use a hot mirror filter on the lens. The M9 has a 1.5 mm filter, which keeps out IR but adversely affects corner resolution, in a manner which cannot be corrected in firmware. The Sony cover glass is only slightly thicker than in the M9.

 

We do not know how Nikon treats this issue. Due to the short flange distance, Z lenses can't be used on other cameras, including Sony, for an A/B comparison, and Sony lenses can't be used on the Nikon. Contrary to the previous post, the number of suitable lenses for Sony is growing rapidly. Regarding the cost, they are reasonable compared to the new price of Hasselblad lenses (an Orsetto passion), prior to the virtual collapse of the 6x6 film industry, or Leica lenses to the present day.

 

Nikon SLR lenses can be used with a Sony A7 and Nikon Z because the long back-focus length renders the lens nearly telecentric. While the edges and corners are not distorted, the center performance leaves much to be desired, having been designed to suit film and 12-20 MP sensors.

 

Nikon will work things out as they have always done - by themselves.

Sony lenses can't be used on the Nikon

Yes they can - E-mount-to-Z-mount adapters are available: Techart PRO Autofocus Adapter for Sony E-Mount Lens to Nikon Z-Mount Camera

We do not know how Nikon treats this issue.

I read that the Z-sensor cover glass is 1.1mm - or about half what Sony uses.

Leica introduced the M8 with a 0.8 mm filter which passed so much IR, that users were obliged to use a hot mirror filter on the lens. The M9 has a 1.5 mm filter

AFAIK, the numbers are 0.5mm and 0.8mm, respectively: Sensor Stack Thickness: When Does It Matter?

And while we're on the subject of aberrations, lets not forget Sony itself has a huge hand in those due their ill-conceived, inexcusable decision to blight the A7 series with a ridiculously thick sheet of plate glass over the sensor.

Not just the A7 series, the consumer Nex and Alpha6000 series are 'blessed' with a thick glass plate too. However, it's not as crazy as it looks. There are distinct optical advantages to having a field-flattener (which is, I suspect, it's purpose) practically in contact with the image plane.

 

Field-flatteners are usually concave on the side away from the image and facing the main lens array, but who's to say there isn't a gentle curve in Sony's cover glass?

 

Even a plane glass of the right thickness will add path-length to the periphery of the field and bend those rays more normal to the image plane. So it's not at all crazy, and the field flattener has a long history and recognised place in optical design. It can actually reduce the cost of a high performance optical system substantially, because it effectively takes the place of a rear element, making the air-space between main lens and field-flattener part of the optical system. This gives the designer another parameter to 'play' with, and air spaces are cost free!