Price difference between Nikon and Canon super telephotos

I am starting to learn bird photography and currently use 70-200 F2.8 VR with a TC-IIE. Obviously, the range is limited and sharpness/foucs speed are not great. In not so distant future, I see myself going for a 500 F4. However, there is a huge price difference in the equivalent Nikon and Canon lenses in this range, and sometimes I wonder whether I should switch to Canon. At the same time, I would really like to avoid the hassle of selling my current gear.

My question is how do Nikon users justify the higher cost of Nikon super telephotos vs. those of Canon? Thanks!:)

Big Warm Welcome to BPN !!!!

That is one tough question to answer !!! Most of the Nikon gear is higher than Canon and see your point but would not chose based on price only. Recently I came back to Canon after a year and a half away.

My main concern had to do with lens selection and the flagship camera not having a crop factor. You also should consider ease in buying (finding) lenses. Typically when they come out NPS members get the lenses first which I loved but not so good for the general public. Back to Canon and real happy !!!!

That is very true, Nikon big guns are more expensive, the main reason is production volume which is still lower compared to Canon. However for a period of 3 months between Oct-Dec 2008 Nikon gear had reasonable prices, I saw the 200-400 VR on B&H for as low as $4400! I wish I had not hesitated now the lens is well over $6K!

But in defense of Nikon, you don't have to buy a $4K body to get really pro features, you can get a D300 with MB-D10 and shoot @ 8fps with 45msec shutter lag, pro AF and 100% finder for under $2K. If you want this performance from Canon you need to buy 1DMKIII. I also like the versatility of D700, it's the jack of all trades, you can use your 500 and go birding, then put on the sweet 14-24 and do some amazing wide angle work. It just beats any situation, it has never failed me so far. So with Nikon you pay more for lenses and less for bodies. Hopefully Nikon will realize tough competition and lower prices of their super telephotos.

Canon is going to update their guns with new IS, we have to wait and see if they raise prices as well. I wonder who else in this forum is as crazy as me to have two camera brands :D

Thanks for replying guys! Alfred, I am so glad to have discovered this site. I have been lurking for a couple of weeks - enjoying the excellent avian images submitted here. I expect to learn a lot by sharing my images here.

Both of you have confused me even further :) Is camera body a good criterion to choose brands? The two companies keep getting ahead of each other every year - and ultimately one would get a good enough camera body in either of the brands. Personally, I like to remain a little behind in camera body and currently use a D200.

However, I think that a big gun lens is an *one-time* long term investment. So, in order to get a Nikon, one has to spend ~2.5K extra bucks just once possibly in 10 years. Maybe that is how the Nikon buyers justify their purchase :)

Anyways, it seems that there isn't much difference in the lens quality, and generally canon lenses are cheaper and much easier to get because of higher volume/larger customer base, company size. I also find that majority of wildlife photographers use canon, and they must have good reasons.

I guess my final decision is going to be whimsical as usual. I would continue using my current equipment for a while though, and learn ways of getting closer to the bigger birds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manishkshukla

Thanks for replying guys! Alfred, I am so glad to have discovered this site. I have been lurking for a couple of weeks - enjoying the excellent avian images submitted here. I expect to learn a lot by sharing my images here.

Both of you have confused me even further :) Is camera body a good criterion to choose brands? The two companies keep getting ahead of each other every year - and ultimately one would get a good enough camera body in either of the brands. Personally, I like to remain a little behind in camera body and currently use a D200.

However, I think that a big gun lens is an *one-time* long term investment. So, in order to get a Nikon, one has to spend ~2.5K extra bucks just once possibly in 10 years. Maybe that is how the Nikon buyers justify their purchase :)

Anyways, it seems that there isn't much difference in the lens quality, and generally canon lenses are cheaper and much easier to get because of higher volume/larger customer base, company size. I also find that majority of wildlife photographers use canon, and they must have good reasons.

I guess my final decision is going to be whimsical as usual. I would continue using my current equipment for a while though, and learn ways of getting closer to the bigger birds.

---

Camera bodies come and go every year or two, but glass is forever (almost). It seems to me that generaly Canon glass has a wider selection, lower cost, and equal or better quality in most cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manishkshukla

Thanks for replying guys! Alfred, I am so glad to have discovered this site. I have been lurking for a couple of weeks - enjoying the excellent avian images submitted here. I expect to learn a lot by sharing my images here.

Both of you have confused me even further :) Is camera body a good criterion to choose brands? The two companies keep getting ahead of each other every year - and ultimately one would get a good enough camera body in either of the brands. Personally, I like to remain a little behind in camera body and currently use a D200.

However, I think that a big gun lens is an *one-time* long term investment. So, in order to get a Nikon, one has to spend ~2.5K extra bucks just once possibly in 10 years. Maybe that is how the Nikon buyers justify their purchase :)

Anyways, it seems that there isn't much difference in the lens quality, and generally canon lenses are cheaper and much easier to get because of higher volume/larger customer base, company size. I also find that majority of wildlife photographers use canon, and they must have good reasons.

I guess my final decision is going to be whimsical as usual. I would continue using my current equipment for a while though, and learn ways of getting closer to the bigger birds.

---

You have to maintain balance between lens and camera body, a lot has happened since D200, you will appriciate D300 if you use one. D200 uses the old CCD technology and high ISO isn't great. For telephoto Canon lenses are great and cheaper, quality is about the same, I would still give the edge to Nikon lenses with nano-crystal coating, these are newer designs (2006-2007) and usually have better contrast but not as much as the price difference suggests. For normal and wideangle work Nikon is the choice, currently Canon has no match for either 24-70 f/2.8G and 14-24, but that is irrelevant to birding.

You would be wise to choose a system based on mainly on lens lineup and availability. The Canon 500/4 IS was released in 1999 and I've never heard of any supply problems. The equivalent Nikon VR lens was released about 6 years later and since then has been more or less unavailable to the average person on the street due to supply shortages, although this may be easing now. I'm pretty sure if I'd stayed with Nikon, I'd still be waiting for my 500/4 VR today. As it is, I moved to Canon almost two years ago and have had the pleasure of using IMO one of the best lenses ever made (the 500/4 IS) since then.

It may be apocryphal but I heard from a reliable source that Nikon has only 5 people trained to hand-build their new super-teles. Canon has twice that number. Combine that with a big move by pro sport shooters to Nikon and away from the Canon 1D mkIII and you simply can't supply the demand.

lol This is a coincidence but Nikon 500 f/4 VR (gray market at least) is currently in stock at B&H, so you can buy one right now if you have the $$$ :D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...00mm_f_4G.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

lol This is a coincidence but Nikon 500 f/4 VR (gray market at least) is currently in stock at B&H, so you can buy one right now if you have the $$$ :D

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...00mm_f_4G.html

---

No thanks Arash. I'd be looking at well over $11,000 Can for the pleasure of buying a lens with no Nikon warranty. I did say the supply may be easing- apparently it is!

Just checked my three main Canadian sources and all say "no stock" and "special order" for the 500VR. The 500IS is "in stock" from the same supplier I went to 2 years ago. And so it goes.

Thanks Jim and John, I am leaning towards canon for these reasons that you have mentioned.

Arash, no Nikon warranty on that one, and Canon 500 F4 is available for $5,800.00. If I decided to buy today, I would go with Canon. I would save money even while keeping my current Nikon gear :) I can get a good camera body plus the birding lens for less than $8449 (the price of the Grey market Nikon lens)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manishkshukla

Thanks Jim and John, I am leaning towards canon for these reasons that you have mentioned.

Arash, no Nikon warranty on that one, and Canon 500 F4 is available for $5,800.00. If I decided to buy today, I would go with Canon. I would save money even while keeping my current Nikon gear :) I can get a good camera body plus the birding lens for less than $8449 (the price of the Grey market Nikon lens)!

---

Fair and reasonable, good luck :)

I've just started to make the switch from Nikon to Canon. It's been a bit wrenching. I bought my first Nikon in 1967, and still have some of my lenses from the 1970s. The driver for me is exactly the cost of the long lenses. If Nikon wants to maintain a significant high-end presence, they really need to bite the bullet, even lose money, but get their prices more in line with Canon. It's just crazy that you can buy a Canon 500mm f/4 and a 50D body and still spend less than on the Nikon 500 f/4 alone.

Bill

Ah, yes, the Canon Vs Nikon debate....it's never ending, is it ? :-)

It is my firm belief that for a hobbyist and a man/woman *on a budget*, there's no better option than Canon, period !!

My (relatively)cheap canon equipment produces equal or better quality.

To me, there's just no justification to spending ~25% more for the same lens when Canon has a bigger lineup and vastly available new/used lenses in the market everyday, just walk-in, pick your lens, start shooting.

One brand makes a 400 f/5.6, the other makes a 200-400 f/4. How much does not owning one affect your picture taking abilities ?? People can get wooed and amazed by marketing buzzwords that get cameras/lenses sold.

Glad you made the decision to go with Canon, save some dough and enjoy your hobby !

You can't go wrong with either system and If I could make a generalization that be Nikon has the edge at the wide end ... Canon at the long !!

Camera bodies should be a crucial part of decision and the lack of crop factor for the pro bodies is a big one. The D300 is a fine camera, better than the 50D but also more expensive so your are comparing apples to oranges... and the Mk3 is a different league to the D300 ..they are not competitors.

As you may have noticed, some people on the Canon side are awaiting some long-anticipated announcements ("60D" and "1D Mark IV") before making big investments in bodies, like buying a 1D Mark III. Might be wise for you to wait a little. This does not take away from the basic point that Canon superteles are startlingly cheaper than Nikons at this time.

Aden Camera Toronto prices, today, $Can:

Canon 500/4 IS: $7699.99 + $1000.99 tax = $8700.98
Nikon 500/4 VR: $9499.99 + $1234.99 tax = $10734.98

Difference after tax = $2034. Canon is 19% cheaper than Nikon.

I think that constitutes "startlingly cheaper"!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

You can't go wrong with either system and If I could make a generalization that be Nikon has the edge at the wide end ... Canon at the long !!

Camera bodies should be a crucial part of decision and the lack of crop factor for the pro bodies is a big one. The D300 is a fine camera, better than the 50D but also more expensive so your are comparing apples to oranges... and the Mk3 is a different league to the D300 ..they are not competitors.

---

Good point Al- I had not realised until now that after a long wait after Canon's FF bodies emerged, Nikon finally brought them to market and then made their entire pro line of bodies FF. That was a bold move on their part.

It's all fun isn't it?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Good point Al- I had not realised until now that after a long wait after Canon's FF bodies emerged, Nikon finally brought them to market and then made their entire pro line of bodies FF. That was a bold move on their part.

It's all fun isn't it?!

---

Well it's actually not as bad as here then

Canon 500 f/4 IS =$5900 (buy from B&H no tax :) )
Nikon 500 f/4 VR =$8600

difference ~ $2700 = 46% a free 5D MKII :eek:

But I like Nikon's idea about FX, take the D3X for example, inside every D3X there is a 14 mpixel 1.3 crop camera and a 11 mpixel 1.5 crop camera that can shoot at 7fps. For a given pixel density larger sensor is always better.

It would be interesting to know wholesale prices. I bet a lot of the price difference is due to supply and demand with middle-men and retailers earning bigger margins on the Nikon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Well it's actually not as bad as here then

Canon 500 f/4 IS =$5900 (buy from B&H no tax :) )
Nikon 500 f/4 VR =$8600

difference ~ $2700 = 46% a free 5D MKII :eek:

But I like Nikon's idea about FX, take the D3X for example, inside every D3X there is a 14 mpixel 1.3 crop camera and a 11 mpixel 1.5 crop camera that can shoot at 7fps. For a given pixel density larger sensor is always better.

---

This is exactly what I meant. To me, this justifies the switch to canon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flavio Rose

As you may have noticed, some people on the Canon side are awaiting some long-anticipated announcements ("60D" and "1D Mark IV") before making big investments in bodies, like buying a 1D Mark III. Might be wise for you to wait a little. This does not take away from the basic point that Canon superteles are startlingly cheaper than Nikons at this time.

---

Thanks Flavio, I am planning to wait unless I convince myself to get a 5DMII. It seems that the announcment is coming within a couple of weeks. Market availabilility may take time though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manishkshukla

Thanks Flavio, I am planning to wait unless I convince myself to get a 5DMII. It seems that the announcment is coming within a couple of weeks. Market availabilility may take time though.

---

If your main interest is birds, the 5dII should not be your main choice, because of AF acquisition and frame rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

It would be interesting to know wholesale prices. I bet a lot of the price difference is due to supply and demand with middle-men and retailers earning bigger margins on the Nikon.

---

Or because Nikon is a smaller company. May be much smaller.

As for margins, he may disagrees with you:

http://www.bythom.com/

Or at least he doesn't think the dealers actually make a whole lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

Or because Nikon is a smaller company. May be much smaller.

As for margins, he may disagrees with you:

http://www.bythom.com/

Or at least he doesn't think the dealers actually make a whole lot.

---

Canon as a whole is a larger company but only 32% of their business is consumer camera related (this was in Dec 2008). Both of these companies sell at least a few thousand camera products from P&S to cheap lenses and entry DSLRs per one super telephoto lens like 500 f/4 VR, take an average price of US $350 and a conservative profit margin of 10% ($35 per item) they make at the very least $35K net profit out of the low end mass market per one super telephoto, I don't think they actually make that much out of these premium lenses, since the production volume is so low and cost scales with volume. Products like these are not a detrimental factor in their financial performance. In 2007 Canon had 43% of DSLR market share and Nikon had 40%, http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1207604859.html most of this figure is low end cameras and this was before the new entry levels with video so my suspicion is Nikon is now ahead, so both companies have comparable market shares.

A while back I came across the website of a couple of very famous photographers, Joe and Mary Ann McDonald. Mary Ann McDonald in 1994 won two first places awards in the BBC. There is a lot of interesting information if you dig into their website, and one very appropriate writing by Joe McDonald is entitled:

Why Did We Switch From Nikon To Canon: http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-M...%20SWITCH.html

On their Question of the Month page of past questions - lots of interesting stuff: http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-M...ng%20bats.html

Enjoy!

Funny you mention these folks, I was recently on their site and was completely blown away by the wildlife pictures they have posted. What is amazing is the exceptional eye clarity, natural sharpness, extreme details they have obtained. I love how they've used a very shallow DoF. Has to be a 300 or 400 2.8 IS.

Definitely, their images are a standard/benchmark to achieve, very inspirational. If I get half as good pictures as theirs in my upcoming trip to Africa, I will consider myself blessed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay Gould

A while back I came across the website of a couple of very famous photographers, Joe and Mary Ann McDonald. Mary Ann McDonald in 1994 won two first places awards in the BBC. There is a lot of interesting information if you dig into their website, and one very appropriate writing by Joe McDonald is entitled:

Why Did We Switch From Nikon To Canon: http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-M...%20SWITCH.html

On their Question of the Month page of past questions - lots of interesting stuff: http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-M...ng%20bats.html

Enjoy!

---

Great article Jay and thanks for the link !!

On thing to note is the date of switching At that time lost of people were coming over to Canon since there were compelling reason to do so. When the EOS system was introduced it was way ahead of Nikon and the playing field was not leveled. Now we don't have as great a difference. I'm glad to have competing companies !!

Thanks Jay for the link. Great site with lots of useful information. However, I agree with Alfred that the reasons given there to compare Canon and Nikon are dated and do not apply today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabs Forns

If your main interest is birds, the 5dII should not be your main choice, because of AF acquisition and frame rate.

---

I see. 50D appears to be a better choice then. I read in a different thread that there could be autofocus issues when using this camera with a 500 F4 and 2X teleconverter. Is that correct?

For now, I would wait a bit for new Canon announcements (60D, 1DM4) and continue to weigh my options. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay Gould

A while back I came across the website of a couple of very famous photographers, Joe and Mary Ann McDonald. Mary Ann McDonald in 1994 won two first places awards in the BBC. There is a lot of interesting information if you dig into their website, and one very appropriate writing by Joe McDonald is entitled:

Why Did We Switch From Nikon To Canon: http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-M...%20SWITCH.html

On their Question of the Month page of past questions - lots of interesting stuff: http://www.hoothollow.com/Question-M...ng%20bats.html

Enjoy!

---

Jay, isn't the McDonal's article VERY old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manishkshukla

I see. 50D appears to be a better choice then. I read in a different thread that there could be autofocus issues when using this camera with a 500 F4 and 2X teleconverter. Is that correct?

For now, I would wait a bit for new Canon announcements (60D, 1DM4) and continue to weigh my options. Thanks!

---

In the few days I had a 50D, I didn't have issues with the AF, and Al uses it all the time and is happy about it also.
My main problem with the body was the high level of color noise, even sometimes at ISO 400. You have to expose REALLY to the right, minimal underexposure is the kiss of death.

I am very sure that by now, manishkhukla is very happny and comfortable that his switching to Canon will be one of the greatest decisions he has ever made :) And personally I think only Nikon can tell you how their prices are justified. But, in case you have not noticed, the demand for Nikon is still there.

Nikon in general costs more I don't think many will doubt that (some still dispute that believe it or not). However, in general prices are only one of the factors in making the "buy or not buy" decision. If you want to know more, there're books on that subject you can refer to.

Anyhow, I think it will be more interesting to hear from those prior Canon users who have switched to Nikon - despite the cost factor - why they switched and, if they have not already, whether they will likely go back to Canon.

You just heard from one :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manishkshukla

I see. 50D appears to be a better choice then. I read in a different thread that there could be autofocus issues when using this camera with a 500 F4 and 2X teleconverter. Is that correct?

For now, I would wait a bit for new Canon announcements (60D, 1DM4) and continue to weigh my options. Thanks!

---

50D cannot AF with 500 f/4 + 2X TC, minimum aperture required for 50D to achieve AF is f/5.6 so you can AF with 500 and 1.4X TC. Only 1D cameras can AF with f/8 lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Desmond Chan

Anyhow, I think it will be more interesting to hear from those prior Canon users who have switched to Nikon - despite the cost factor - why they switched and, if they have not already, whether they will likely go back to Canon.

---

And another.
I switched from Canon EOS film to Nikon Digital when the D70 came out. (prior to Canon, was with Minolta and before that Olympus).
I preferred the handling, build quality and menu system of the Nikon over the Canon.
Now with my new 500VR means a real commitment to the Nikon system and won't be going back anytime soon.

Cheers
Marc

Marc big glass is no problem ... can sell for close to original .. its the little stuff that will kill you when you switch :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

Marc big glass is no problem ... can sell for close to original .. its the little stuff that will kill you when you switch :)

---

That's right batteries, older bodies, grips and stuff are worth nothing :( That said when I switched to Nikon for wide and normal work I sold my almost new 16-35 f/2.8L II with a Hoya thin filter for only $1000! (I had got it for $1500) so I guess it depends to how popular the lens is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alfred Forns

Marc big glass is no problem ... can sell for close to original .. its the little stuff that will kill you when you switch :)

---

Good point Al :(

Consider a Nikon 200-400 VR on a D300 which gives you a 300-600 f/4 then coupled with a 1.4 TC and walla - 840mm.

I agree with Fabs - The only real problem with a Canon lens is you can't put it on a Nikon camera. :D:p:D

Big factor is the ergonomics as well. Get what feels good to you .


Best Regards

Good point. You can get used to just about anything but for me I could not live without the big wheel at the back of my Canon's.

Hi John Interesting point regarding the big wheel

I guess the one thing I missed from my one and a half years with Nikon is handling. I find the controls much easier to use and perfectly laid out !!!

Now that I've been back for a few moths all seem natural and fully used to it !!! ... and btw glad I'm back :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krishnan

Big factor is the ergonomics as well. Get what feels good to you. Best Regards

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Good point. You can get used to just about anything but for me I could not live without the big wheel at the back of my Canon's.

---

Bingo... I have been a Canon user for most part and an VERY interested in the D300. Cost is not really the issue, I could afford it if I wanted too, but the ergonomics of Nikon are just not for me...

I tried the D300 that a friend has and am glad I did before I bought one for myself.

Having said that, I think here are the Nikon advantages:
AF: In semipro cropped bodies.
Flash: The system is simply better.
Color: This is debatable, but my significant other seems to like the Nikon colors over Canon.
Some lenses: Like the 200-400 VR (nice to have); but then they do not have the 400/5.6.

So all in all a good debate, but for WL and birds, Canon would still be my first choice.

-- Vivek

Nikon also doesn't have an 800mm to compete with Canon. Of course, if they did, it'd cost considerably more!! Both lens systems will produce wonderful images in the right hands.

There are other factors that figure into the cost equation.

How does Canon resale hold up? Nikon long lenses hold their value extremely well. I recently sold the 400 2.8 vers 1 for $60 less than what I purchased it for three years ago. In past years I had the same experience with the 200-400 and 500 f/4, both selling very near their purchase prices.

I'm also interested in how the Canon warranty stacks up against Nikon's 5-year warranty.

Resale price of course depends on a lot of factors such as condition etc. A big factor must be current pricing and how the Yen is doing against your favourite currency. I bought the Canon 500/4 in April of 2008 and paid about $6900 Can. Now the lens would cost me $8700 from the same dealer and about $9500 at two major camera dealers in Toronto. If I sold the (pristine) lens now for say $500 less than current pricing, I would make about $1300 or more, or about 19% on the investment! Not bad considering what has happened to the stock market over the same period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Chardine

Resale price of course depends on a lot of factors such as condition etc. A big factor must be current pricing and how the Yen is doing against your favourite currency. I bought the Canon 500/4 in April of 2008 and paid about $6900 Can. Now the lens would cost me $8700 from the same dealer and about $9500 at two major camera dealers in Toronto. If I sold the (pristine) lens now for say $500 less than current pricing, I would make about $1300 or more, or about 19% on the investment! Not bad considering what has happened to the stock market over the same period.

---

You guys should order from across the border! I remember 500 f/4 being US $5500-$5800 in the past 4 years at major dealers like B&H. Nikon prices were also very good in the last 4 months of 2008, I bought a 24-70 and 14-24 each for $1400 and now they have gone up to $1800, Canon prices have not gone up much surprisingly despite Dollar depreciation maybe Canon have shrunk their margins even further to gain market share .

Being a business man I wonder if they have shrunk their profit margin or lowered their quality and resultant cost? Hmmm - Something has to give, huh?