Why is 24-120mm VR lens pre-selling with D700 cost more than that lens alone?

The kit is advertised for $3600. Camera alone for $3000. Lens alone for sale now at around $510. Same lens, as far was I can tell. Why

is the kit more expensive? Any ideas?

My guess is that Nikon is hoping for a hot run on this lens, much like the 85mm f/1.4D that was always pictured with the D3.

When you buy the kit, it comes in a large box with the individual boxes for the D700 body and 24-120 inside. Obviously there is the additional cost for the large box.

 

Additionally, if you buy a high-end FX body but put a very consumer-grade 5x zoom in front of it, most likely you are a beginner and will call 1-800-Nikon-US (or whatever your local number is) many times with simple questions. Nikon has to factor in the additional cost for answering those beginner questions after the sale. That is why they are charging an extra $90.

Sorry, I was too busy trying to come up with a wise-guy response to actually address your question.

 

Yes, it is ridiculous that Nikon (or whoever is setting the $3,600 price) doesn't think that buyers will figure out that 3600 - 510 = 90.

 

I haven't heard of anyone using the 24-120 VR on a D3 to know how well it does. With the D700's high ISOs Nikon may actually be counting on the 24-120 VR being "the lens to have" with that body.

 

OK, Shun - your response was posted while I was typing this one - is yours a "wise guy" response, too?

 

Maybe buyers will realize the price gap and spend the $90 on photo.net subscriptions and post all their questions here.

If the IQ is OK, it would be a good lens to have actually. Heard not best things about it, but never used myself.

The D700 and D700 kit are offered at MSRP for the introduction. The 24-120VR is being offered below MSRP by B&H, and that

makes the kit look overpriced.

Pretty good focal lenght match for D700. My reading tell me it is not Nikons best lens. Look around first.

 

B&H is discounting them because they don`t sell. Nikon is doing the bundle for same reason.

"tell me it is not Nikons best lens" - I guess those less favorite opinions could be from usage on a DX sensor

camera? - or from people with very high quality perception threshold and deep pockets. On FX sensor camera, this

lens could be just right ?

Is there a SRP for this camera in the US? Nikon Japan is announcing it with an OPEN PRICE (no SRP) and they are

selling it for 295,200 Yen body only. The lens alone for 71,800 Yen and the combo 365,400 Yen. it becomes 1,600 Yen

cheaper to buy them separately. My estimate is the store's price is around 180,000 Yen (body), or less, and they mark it up according to

the

demand. Here the stores compete with each other and I don't think Nikon got anything to do with it.

I went to get NX2 at my local store and their price for a D3 at the moment is 540,000 Yen which is more than when it went

on sale last year but if i get my wallet out i know I could take it home for around 450,000 Yen.

 

At the moment, what ever the price is for a D200 or D300 the stores are no selling them for less that what they paid for. They are just

making less profit. Nikon and other manufacturers don't go around giving money back to the stores so they can reduce the prices.Rene'

My guess is that Nikon's market research didn't reveal anything conclusive about the demand for the D700. They're not sure who to cater to. If the remarks I've read online for years up 'til now clamoring for fool frame, and since the D700 was officially launched, are any indication, it's no wonder they're not sure how to package the camera.

"...it's no wonder they're not sure how to package the camera."

 

I just took my name off the list at the shop for the D700. At the moment I'm kitted with D300 and zooms covering

everything. I'm happy. My original impulsive reaction to the D700 was an email to the dealer "put me on the

list!". A few days later, I'm was wondering what I'd mount on it? At the moment, it'd be primes or long zooms. So

another email went for the 24-70. This is getting expensive. Then it sunk in that I'm going to have a D300 with

17-55 on one shoulder and a D700 with a 24-70 on the other. Hmm, kinda useless. So then I started thinking about

selling the DX stuff. And then "hold your horses, Charlie Brown. All this for an extra stop of high iso

performance?" So another email went yesterday with "thanks but no thanks." for a D700. Think I'll just buy more

DX stuff. The used market might be good in a month, too.

Shh..., Garrison, if everyone starts thinking that way who'll buy the D700?

Lex, there will be plenty of people buying it. It's not about "one stop", but about compatibility with a full range of lenses,

which never existed for DX. About lower spatial frequencies demanded from the lenses. And a viewfinder through which

you can actually see your subject.

that's funny, because while the D700 is being touted as the second-best digital camera nikon's ever made, the 24-120 made KR's list as one of the worst lenses nikon's ever made.

 

quote:"The 24-120mm VR is a failed dream because it's too darn soft. At 24mm, the corners on film and FX are soft. It's softer than any other Nikon lens I've tried at the wide end."

 

a failed dream? ouch.

 

nikon probably would have been better off adding the 50/1.4 as the kit lens, which at least has sharpness and max aperture going for it, and could appeal to a purist aesthetic. any serious photiographer buying a D700 will want a better lens for it than the 24-120; if the 16-85 was FX it would have been perfect.

 

this awkward pairing proves thom hogan was right when he said nikon hadn't solidified its current FX lens lineup prior to the D700's arrival. for their sake, let's hope there are a lot of soccer dads who can plunk down $3500 for a camera they'll use in P most of the time, while cursing under their breath about the lack of scene modes.

"Yes, it is ridiculous that Nikon (or whoever is setting the $3,600 price) doesn't think that buyers will figure

out that 3600 - 510 = 90."

 

Anybody with that sort of math deserves to shoot the D700 with this "phantastic" zoom :-P

(Sorry Eric I know its cheap - I just could not resist^^)

 

 

Serioulsy I think Nikon may have a large pile of this lens and had no better idea how to get rid of it. As soon

as the pile gets smaller we will see the D700 sold as body only.

 

Today I am certain you can work something out with your local dealer to get the D700 solo if you offer the dealer

say 200US$ "compensation" - hrr.

 

 

Here in Germany I see the D700 body advertised by my local dealer at 2599.00 EU or as a kit with the 24-70 at

4098.00 EU.

Delivery: "end of 07/2008".

Only a guess... I suspect Nikon left its dealers room to discount the kit.

 

I owned and regularly used the 24-120mm VR lens on my D70 and found I was able to get favorable results after

post processing. I liked it and only sold it to upgrade to the 18-200mm. It is a perfect zoom range for a FX

camera. Canon offers their low priced full frame digital camera with a similar 'kit' lens, although it is an L

series lens.

 

Before anyone discounts the abilities of this lens on the D700, perhaps someone should test it first. It may

prove to be a good match. Perhaps Nikon has upgraded the lens as well... anything is possible.

I tried that lens briefly on my D3. While shooting a few images is not a test I must say that the results did not

impress me at all even though I saw that the current version is clearly better than the very old first version

that was completely unacceptable for my needs. My D200 and the 17-55 mm f2.8 are a clearly superior class. So why

go for a

D700 with such a

lens?

 

One can argue that with a D700 it is possible to shoot more often at f8 and so the mediocre lens will be as good

as an excellent one under these conditions but once you enter the price class of the D700 compromise comes to an

end at least for my needs. But I can see that there are cases where this is exactly what some people need. In the

end the images counts and no one cares about the tool^^.

 

I personally got my D3 (and that would be the same reason for me to get an D700 as a second body) to be

able to use some excellent older glass that I own for a long time or got at ebay cheap and not to use a

compromise zoom but that is only me.

Eric, did KR really write that about the VR version of the 24-120? Yet another reason to either suspect sample variation or to regard his opinions with some skepticism.

 

I had and used both the 24-120 VR and 18-70 for almost two years. They were virtually equal, with the 24-120 being slightly better. I suspect a few reasons why the kit zoom enjoys enormous popularity while the 24-120 does not:

 

1. The 18-70 DX is an incredible bargain for a good performer. Low expectations are easily surpassed. Unless one needs the VR, the 24-120 may seem overpriced to some, increasing their expectations and likelihood of being disappointed.

 

2. Endless repetition of credible opinion from a few people until the illusion of consensus is achieved; bolstered by piling on from those with questionable credibility.

 

3. 24mm was perceived as "not wide enough" by a new generation of photographers suddenly addicted to wide angles. So the 24-120 VR began life with a strike against it on DX dSLRs.

 

The latter seems particularly odd to me. Maybe I've been a photographer for too long. But years ago a midrange zoom in the 35-70mm or very slightly longer range was considered satisfactory. Now when you offer a comparable focal range to the dSLR crowd they react with, at best, a yawn and at worst with feverish indignation and screams for revenge, even if it means prosecuting Nikon in The Hague.

 

Personally, I don't care. Garrison's sensible response pretty much sums up my attitude.

I shot with the D700 and 24-120 VR a couple days ago. I happened by the pro shop during the two hours the nikon

rep was there with this pair. I found the lens slower to acquire focus lock than my Eos L f2.8 lenses on 5D. The rep

said it would be available with and without this lens. I'd guess they are packaging it with this lens to clear out excess

inventory. If I weren't happily invested in eos system I certainly would consider D700 without the bundled lens. And I'll

say it, I

like the super tall built in flash. I can't see why people would cash out of their dx lenses when they're compatible with

this

second nikon fx body. Theres no 8x10 crop mode in the D700 like there is in D3. Canon made a design mistake not

allowing for aps-c crop glass to be mountable on full frame dslr.

 

Lindy

Lex ...

Still shooting my 35-70 and 80-200 from film days on my DX body... Still happy... Next upgrade will be the body,

not the lenses...

 

denny

Lex sample variation seems a bigger problem with these "prosumer" zooms (and some cheap primes like the 28mm AFD

and the 24mm AFD) than with pro grade zooms and primes. This by itself is not a surprise. At the cost of these

lenses testing of the final product is left to the consumer.

 

You mentioned the 18-70mm "kit" lens. For some strange reason I had the opportunity to test three samples of this

lens. All three varied slightly and showed differing IQ at various focal length. One of these was clearly better

than the other two and gave acceptable results that looked pretty close to the 17-55 mm zoom after some post

processing (yes of course less post processing with the pro lens). Unless you compared the same scene taken with

both lenses the results looked very much the same.

 

This was not restricted to zooms as I compared several 24mm f2.8 AFD lenses and 1 out of 4 was obviously pretty

bad while there were slight differences among the rest. Two out of 4 were almost as good as my AIS version.

 

Occasionally I talk to some people at Zeiss and Leica (on microscopy optics) and in their view quality control is

a big fraction of the high price of their products as well as in photography lenses - again not a secret and not

unexpectedly. If

I pay more than the cost of a D3 for a Zeiss lens I do not have to test the lens to be certain that it will keep

the specs. In photography my time is less valuable since this is "only" a hobby and I can take the time for

comparing.

The D700 + 24-120 AF-S VR is simply a very stupid pairing.

 

I can tell you what is going to happen in the next month or two after the release of the D700: a lot of stores will be out of stock with the D700 (body only) but will have the kit because few would buy it.

You either wait or go with the kit and the trouble to sell the 24-120 afterwards. And of course a number of other people will be dumping their kit 24-120 at the same time on eBay, Craig's List and photo.net classifieds ....

 

BTW, the first time I saw the 24-120 AF-S VR was back in 2003 on an F5 body. The serious barrel distortion at 24mm was more than obvious.

Combos in general are not a good idea. There are no economies of scale.

 

On the other hand, I saw a pretty nice photography book published once by photo-journalist who covered events like political marches. When I met the author, he had an N80 and a 24-120 (non-VR). I asked if that was his regular kit, and he confirmed that it was. Most of the photos in the book were shot with that combo. So if you capture a great photo, no one will complain about the technicalities.

"It's not about "one stop", but about compatibility with a full range of lenses, which never existed for DX."

 

Thats news to me. Illka. My D300's mount an array of both new FF and DX glass as well as 40 years of old MF

lenses. What

doesn't range of lenses doesn't exisit for my DX bodies? The only technical advantages, results wise, that I feel

a D700 has over a D300 is one stop of high iso performance. The rest is bells and whistles. I'm sure I'm not the

only in the "oh dear, new format, lets re-tool...again" quagmire.

"The kit is advertised for $3600. Camera alone for $3000. Lens alone for sale now at around $510. Same lens, as far was I can tell. Why is the kit more expensive? Any ideas?"

 

Hum...that does not make sense to me. Usually, the kit should be less expensive. Well, that's Nikon. Like they did put the price on their new released copies of 16-85 at $ 650 :-((((((((((