Nikkor Vs L Lens

[cabbit]

Hey folks i am wondering if there is any reason why Nikon Nikkor lens are significantly cheeper than Canon L glass at the super tele end. Im looking at the 400mm f2.8 and 600 f4's from both and the Nikkor versions are about £4000 cheeper.

Are the current Nikkor lenses quite old or just not as well built. Are there other factors (AF Speed/IQ/Weight) that would mean when upgrading my super tele on Nikon i could get a pro body and lens for the same as just upgrading my Canon Lens?

Please note i am not interested in what body is best just now, only lens quality of the 400 2.8 and 600 f4 range. And i would agree with anyone that says the Nikkor lens are not very ascetically pleasing.

Example
Nikkor 600mm F4 + Nikon D4 = £11269.99
Canon 600mm F4 II + Canon 1Dx = £15899.99

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Generally, the new MK II Canon lenses are far sharper, lighter, and just plain better. That does not make the Nikon lenses bad, they are very good. With lenses, it cost a huge amount to gain a relatively small increase in performance. Production of the top lenses is state of the art, and tolerances are so small that they can't be measured, they have to use indirect means to determine the accuracy of the grinding, and even then, they fit the elements by trial and error until they get a combination that gives the desired result.
Thats why we do not see low cost lenses from China that match the high end lenses. We eventually will, but, for now, Only a few companies make relatively affordable super telephoto lenses. There are better ones made for military lenses, but the cost makes a high end Nikon or Canon lens look dirt cheap.

 

[Loswr]

Example
Nikkor 600mm F4 + Nikon D4 = £11269.99
Canon 600mm F4 II + Canon 1Dx = £15899.99

You're talking about the wrong sort of pounds.

Nikkor 600mm F4 + Nikon D4 = 13.8 lbs
Canon 600mm F4 II + Canon 1Dx = 11.6 lbs

The 2.2 lb lower weight of the Canon combo means I can carry it more easily, and most importantly, shoot it handheld.

 

[mikezphoto]

Newer stuff is always more expensive... It is always important to consider inflation as well. Think about the Nikon 600 f/4L VR, it was introduced in 2007 at around ~$9800. In 2012 dollars that comes out to $10,933.18 which is still less than the Canon lens, but much closer. Add in some of the advantages of the Canon model such as lighter weight and this makes sense.

Here are some other examples.

Look at the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR (version 1), it usually sold for around $1699 and was introduced in 2003. Take inflation into account and you get $2,135.91. Again slightly under both new 70-200 offerings from both Canon and Nikon, but pretty darn close.

The Canon 24-70 was introduced in 2002 for about 220,000 yen. At the time ~125 yen was equal to 1 USD, making the lens $1750. Once again in 2012 dollars that is $2,250.17, just about on par with the price of the new 24-70LII. Be happy you aren't paying $3000 for it, which would be a more accurate price in terms of what the dollar is worth against the yen now.

Let's be conservative and say the Canon 35mm f/1.4L sold for $1200 in 1998 when it was released (It may have been more or perhaps less, some insight on this would be nice), well the new Nikon 35 1.4G retails for about $1650... What do you get when you adjust $1200 in 1998 to 2012 dollars? $1,702.95

Neither brand is really more expensive, the newer products from both manufacturers tend to be more pricey. The biggest reason isn't R&D or some crazy new technology either.

The USD is just worth less and less as the years go by.

Addendum: Think about your grocery bills. You are paying more now, but the food isn't making your body healthier. Inflation is the pits. Gas prices which have been manipulated over the years also impact food prices, so there won't be a totally direct correlation like there is in camera gear... heh

 

[cabbit]

Cheers guys i did not know the Nikon lens were older and heavier than the current Canon's. That would explain the difference in price.