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

[rick_larkin]

I agree that it's not a great lens choice for a kit. By comparison, a D700 paired with a 50/ f1.4 prime would

offer customers a much higher level of image quality right out of the box. And maybe drop the price some too.

[scil_concepts]

Question: Why is 24-120mm VR lens pre-selling with D700?

 

Answer: Because the Canon 5D Kit comes with the 24-105 L IS USM.

[wpahnelas]

i'll be the first to admit the 24-120 VR lens is in my kit mostly for convenience. bought it used cheap, and it's definitely not on my favorites list. but i'll pack it when i'm not sure what else to bring. it does have it's uses.

 

as for being included with the D700 in a kit, i can't imagine any serious photographer choosing that combo. so i have to assume that it's nikons idea of the perfect lens for the D700 owner who doesn't own any other lenses.

[lex_jenkins]

I'm worn out from trying to interject common sense about the 24-120 VR based on direct experience. See for yourself:

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27861231@N04/sets/72157606221394348/

 

Those are all straight from my D2H, no editing. See the EXIF data.

 

Judge for yourself whether it's suitable for your purposes. It was for mine (I sold it only to pay for truck repairs and would buy another, altho' I'd probably consider the 18-200 VR instead).

[constance_cook]

I have had 3 24 - 129 lenses. Two were the non-VR type and I still have one of them which is quite good. I gave the other to a man with a camera but no lens and no money. I also bought the VR version and my experiences match those of Lex. I will keep it and continue to use it when I get the D700. I've used all of them on my F5, F6, D200 and D300. Nice working lens and the only time I have to do a round of sharpening is when I rushed too much before I fired.

 

BTW, Lex, the photo of the Old Boys was taken with this lens as was the B&W of my brother.

 

Conni

[plavchak]

Shun...please tell us you are joking about why Nikon is charging $90 more for the kit. .50 cent of extra cardboard and packing (maybe a $1.00) doesn't add up to $90. I don't think Nikon will be hiring extra people to answer the phone for the d700...anymore than they did for the d300...so they are paying these people already.

 

I think Nikon, like other companies with a hot product, charge more because they can and people will pay it. Pretty simple supply and demand. Nikon knows a cash cow when they have one and will take advantage of it. No different than what Apple did with the first iphone. $500-$600 at first and then 1/2 that within 3-4 months. These compaines count on those who just can not wait to own the newest thing on the block.

[eric_arnold]

"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."

 

why, lex, yes, KR did. in fact you can read the whole thing here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-worst.htm

 

now let me say that i do regard him with skepticism, but at the same time, the fact he's willing to go out on a limb

and be so opinionated is why he's a good read. entertaining at least, which is more than i can say for bjorn, who can

be a bit dry, though technically much more thorough.

 

however, there are plenty of threads here and on nikonians basically confirming the softness issues with the 24-120,

although few have put it so succinctly as a "failed dream." if KR was the only one saying this, i'd be less inclined to

weigh his opinion as possibly being valid.

 

that said, i haven't shot with this lens, and you have. your shots look OK, but no better than what i get on my cheap

but solidly-built tokina 24-200, which isn't the contrastiest out there but delivers acceptable sharpness if you shoot at

f/8. general consensus seems to be that the 24-120 needs a lot of PP massaging. i prefer sharpness right out of the

camera myself.

 

sure, KR could be wrong (wouldnt be the first time--i'd hardly call the 18-200 one of nikon's 10 best, although i do

agree the 50/1.8 belongs there) but it's just as possible you have the only semi-sharp copy of this lens in existance.

 

more to the point, it's also possible that cameras with higher resolution than your D2H show the 24-120's flaws more

plainly, another reason why this pairing seems wacky for a D3.

 

if nikon has a bunch of old stock sitting around, it's not because KR wrote something yesterday about it, it's because

word has gotten out that the 24-120 is as sharp as a butter knife.

[ShunCheung]

Mike, I can't see you over the internet, but I assume you have a head on your shoulders and therefore can figure out jokes. :-)

 

I am sure that the D700 will be a hot product for a month or two, but I would rather see Nikon raise the initial price to say $3200 and gradually move it down. Forcing people to buy a 24-120 when they only need a D700 is plain dumb. The same thing happend a few months ago when the D300 was only available in some situations with a 18-200 in a kit. Clearly the 24-120 is not exactly the top-of-the-line lens to match a D700. Moreover, some people already have a 24-120 or something similar so that they don't need one. Introducing these packages merely creates some artificial supply problems. Unfortunately, some of those who cannot wait will be forced to buy the kit and then sell off the 24-120 at a loss.

[eric_arnold]

at least the 18-200/D300 kit had a rebate attached to it. lots of folks bought that and sold the 18-200 and came out ahead. this way, you're not coming out ahead with the 24-120. even if you sell it LNIB for what you paid, you're taking a $90 hit over the current retail price.

[bruce_stenman1]

Seems odd to me to buy a $3000 FF camera with a $600 lens that is noted for poor IQ from 24-50mm. There will undoubtedly be as many posts regarding unsatisfactory IQ with this lens and the D700 as there have been from people buying the D300 along with the 18-200mm VR lens.

 

Most unfortunate that Nikon has not produced a "L" grade lens like the Canon 24-105mm f4 IS. It would be a sweet lens to have available for Nikon cameras.

[ilkka_nissila]

Garrison wrote: <i>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? </i>

<p>

There are no fast wide angles for DX. A 28/2 might mount and meter on a D300 camera but it's reduced to a (very

expensive) normal lens. What's worse, because the MTF of such lenses are not so great wide open (at the spatial

frequencies required by DX), the image quality is not as good on DX as it is on FX. Simple physics. The 17-55 DX

is a nice lens ... at f/5.6. Stop it down more, or open up from f/5.6 - and image quality loss is evident. I get

nice results with my (short) primes wide open - on 35mm/FX. Teles work fine even on DX wide open - other than the

focusing difficulties. Things are fine as long as you have an AF-S lens on a DX camera - but many AF-D telephoto

lenses aren't so easy to focus correcty. Since e.g. a 180mm lens becomes a 270mm [35mm equivalent] but its manual

focusing is geared for the depth of field on a 35mm/FX camera. It's too fast for DX use at wide apertures.I was

in pain about this for several years - voila, the D3 restored my confidence in both manual and automatic focusing.

<p>

Where are the lenses optimized for portraits in the studio for DX? The 85/1.4 might be good for outdoor shots but

it's a bit soft on DX at wide apertures (not so on the D3, again physics at play), and too long for many indoor

spaces. And the 50mm lenses are not the same thing, although very crisp.

<p>

Where are the PC wide angle lenses for DX? 36mm equivalent isn't short enough for most images where I would want

to use correction. And the 24mm PC-E is a very expensive lens to be used with the angle of view of 36mm [in 35mm

terms]. And the "extra" field of view of FX lenses when used on DX which is not imaged - it accepts light in the

lens and creates unnecessary reflections - this light is not used to make an image, so why let it in to create

confusion?

<p>

<i>The rest is bells and whistles.</i>

<p>

As you like. For me the improved high ISO performance is the cherry on the cake, while the compatibility with

lenses is <i>the</i> real reason I bought the D3. DX is fabulous for telephoto shooting with AF-S lenses but I

want to do other things, as well. And f/2.8 isn't even approaching a fast lens in my world.

[ilkka_nissila]

"In studio" => I meant rather: "indoors".

[twmeyer]

"<i>The only technical advantages</i> (of a D700)<i>, results wise, that I feel a D700 has over a D300 is one

stop of high iso performance.</i>"...well sure, if you only want to print 16x20s or just enjoy them on a

monitor/forum, and you don't need the lowlight focusing and iso advantages.<p> Commercially, the crappy focusing

of my D200 is drivin me nuts. In my art work, I am frequently using the 30sec max timed exposure at iso 100 and

f8, f16 and beyond. I would love to get the same (or better?) image quality at iso 200/400 and be able to print

at 36inches without interpolation issues. And I think the improvement over the D300 will be more than one stop.

And I am moving from a D200. I think it makes more sense for me, perhaps, than your jump from D300 to D700.

<p>Plus, what this camera (D700) does in black and white at high iso will open a whole new approach to the world

for me, especially in portraiture. I'll let you know how it goes... t

[shuo_zhao]

>> "Question: Why is 24-120mm VR lens pre-selling with D700?

 

Answer: Because the Canon 5D Kit comes with the 24-105 L IS USM."

 

The 24-105 f/4L IS is almost certainly a much better lens. It's a sealed, metal, pro-level lens.