Why do Nikon Lenses Cost Significantly More?

[christopher hartt dallas]

I was just surfing around the B&H site and compared the price of a 24-70 Canon L ($1190) to that of a Nikon 24-70

($1699).

 

Comparing several other lenses I found that Nikon charges significantly more for comparable lenses. Can anyone

explain why this is?

[stillbound]

probably because nikon is a much smaller company than canon. if you look across the board you will see that olympus and to a certain extent sony (not sure why this is) lenses all cost more than canons...

[SCL]

I think the answer is in the construction. From what I see, similarly constructed lenses of equivalent aperture and focal length, are within 10-15% of each other across manufacturers. Also some of the manufacturers are price differentiating based on the expected use of their lenses (professional vs consumer grades).

[bob_mcbob]

On the other hand, the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR is $75 cheaper than the Canon equivalent. There does seem to be a

trend of more expensive lenses, though, especially when you get to the superteles -- $7900 vs. $5800 for a 500/4!

 

One thing I really like about Nikon is that they don't shave every last penny off the low-end lenses to sell them

for a bit less. The Nikon 35/2 and 50/1.8 illustrate this really well. Canon's designs for these two lenses use

the slowest AF motors they manufacture and have pathetic build quality. I have always avoided the 35/2 because

of this, and I recently replaced my 50/1.8 with a 50/1.4.

 

Just to continue this a little further, I originally chose Canon for a few reasons. First, they have many

reasonably-priced f/4 zooms where Nikon only has expensive (and large) f/2.8s. Second, more expensive lenses

(especially superteles -- I plan to buy a 500/4 some time in the next couple of years). Third, Nikon Canada's

pathetic attitude to "grey market" items -- they won't even service an item bought in another country if you PAY

them (meanwhile Canon Canada and Canon USA share warranties!). This was a MAJOR issue for me back when I was

first deciding on cameras, since the exchange rate wasn't terribly favourable, and Nikon prices in Canada were

laughable even taking that into account. And finally, Nikon's distribution system in

Canada sucks. I ordered a D200 in December 2005, and still hadn't received it in March. By then I'd had time to

reconsider things and decided to go with the 30D.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Chris - Nikon does have the right to control their supply chain, as do other manifacturers. Mamiya won't service grey market gear, either. As for D200 supply - it was in short supply when launched. Nikon could have raised the price to balance supply and demand, but they didn't. They chose to have people wait for their cameras. You probably could have purchsed one somewhere for a premium, if you had wanted it badly enough. Of course, you have the right to buy Canon, if you like.

[mohir_ali]

Have you checked the Zeiss and Leica lens prices?

[alan_krantz]

Zeiss lenses (for now discontinued contax c/y) was actually quite competitive esp with regards to value. My guess is that nikon lenses 'pro' lenses are probably more expensive due to smaller volume in sales (I'm talkling specifically about those lenses used by sports and photo journalist photographers). Also the Nikon 24-70 is a newer design. Not sure how nikon qc compares to canon - i know that canon receives a bit of flack in this area though adjustments/service in usa is quite good (I hear in europe folks are less happy with canon service).