The new Nikon AF-S lenses seem to be much more expensive than their Canon counterparts. For example, the 28-70 Nikon runs about $1550, while the Canon 28-70 is $1209 (B&H USA prices). Same situation with the Nikon AF-S 80-200 and the Canon 70-200 USM. I don't think the Nikon lenses are better than the Canon ones, so why such a big price difference? Is it because the Nikons are so new?

Another question: Canon has many lenses with a ring USM, whereas Nikon only has a handful of pro-quality lenses with AF-S. Any ideas on where Nikon is going with this? I really like the silent ring's smooth and quiet operation, but I feel like Nikon users are getting the shaft.

-- Jim Meyer (jim_meyer@compusa.com), June 23, 1999

Answers

Nikon has just started introducing AF-S lenses, so my guess is that we should expect to see more and more of them.

They cost more than Canon because they are new (the price will eventually come down some), and because Nikon is Nikon and charges much money for anything with the word Nikon on it.

My guess is also that Canon has more flexibility in pricing because they have the big copier business providing cash flow.

-- John Wall (john_wall@ncsu.edu), June 25, 1999.

I agree on what John said about Canon's flexibility when it comes to pricing their lenses and so with you about the quality of image these two giant camera makers does. Nikon just happen to be somewhat had a good start in producing photo equip and they're capitalizing on their name. I both own a Nikon and Canon camera bodies so I for one know that one is not to superior from the other.

-- Alvin S. Granada (granada666@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

The reason Nikon AF-S Lenses are priced very high right now might be and probably is due to something known as temporal price discrimination. The rational is that Nikon wants to milk the price inelastic market that'll pay anyprice to get the latest, because they are: 1. "dickless" OR, 2. don't care for price (magazines, papers etc.). The rest can wait and will wait. Then Nikon will get the rest. One might argue that the kind who'll wait probably don't have much gear anyway and are therefore not locked in raising the possibility that Nikon might lose that market to Canon. But I am sure Nikon has reserached the matter carefully, OR they are making a mistake in these highly competitive times.

The equation is always market penetration vs. profit. The road has to be carefully tread in a a competitive market.

-- Siddharth (siddharth_das@hotmail.com), July 23, 1999.

The following is a really subjective answer but a lot of decisions to select one brand over another are subjective. I'm a long time Nikon user with an F-100 and several Nikkor D and S lenses. I recently participated in a photo tour which was partially sponsored by Canon so I had plenty of opportunity to use an assortment of the latest Canon lenses particularly the 17-35 and longer telephotos. Canon lenses are state of the art and appear to be optically equivalent to the best Nikon lenses. However, the Canon 17-35 feels plasticy to the touch and doesn't seem to be as expertly crafted as some of the Nikon wide angle zoom lenses. I said this would be subjective. Also, the longer Canon telephotos don't seem to have the balance and feel of the Nikkor 500 AFS-D. If you've been using Nikons for a long time, you get use to the feel of Nikon equipment. Before making a subjective decision to upgrade to an autofocus system a few years ago (after using manual focus Nikons for 25+ years), I just couldn't get use to the feel of Canons despite the fact they seem to have a clear technological advantage over Nikons especially in regard to lenses. Basically, I chose feel and handlability over technology. (You couldn't pry an F-100 from my hands.)

-- Michael Dougherty (Mike@MDougherty.com), February 22, 2000.

As a new EOS3 owner I am SO HAPPY to find out that Canon lenses are so much cheaper than Nikon AF-S lenses. Just how many thousands of dollars cheaper is Canon's 500mm f/4 than Nikon's? Maybe I can actually afford one sooner than I thougth. And, maybe I will also pick up that cheaper Canon 70-200 f/2.8 zoom.

I wish it were so.

-- Stanley McManus (stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 29, 2000.

It is so. B&H prices as of 2/29/00:

Canon Nikon Difference 17-35 f/2.8 1,339.00 ? 28-70 f/2.8 1,209.00 1,600.00 (391.00) 70/80-200 f/2.8 1,309.00 1,410.00 (101.00) 600 f/4 (w/o IS) 8,809.00 9,000.00 (191.00) 11,327.00 12,010.00 (683.00)

The Canon 500 f/4 _with_ IS is only $391.00 more than the Nikon 500 f/4 _without_ IS ($7,600 vs $7,209).

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), February 29, 2000.

Well, the formatting got screwed up. Anyway, Canon is cheaper.

-- Bob (robljones@home.com), February 29, 2000.

Nikon is probably still working off of the pent up demand for internal motor driven lens accumulated over the years when they were the autofocus underdog. So they are in a position to take a little liberty with loyal users and charge a premium. Canon, on the other hand, has probably staisfied most of the demand from existing user base. So additional sales must come from converts won through lower prices.

-- Chuck (chaohui@msn.com), February 29, 2000.

I guess there are only 2 segments are buying Nikon AF line:

1) Amateurs heard the name of Nikon is a pro name, because they are not pro, so better buy a name of pro

2) Professionals carried so many baggages from late 70s or 80s, they are upgrading to AF bodies because of saving on big/expensive glass waste, however, it is pain in the ass to see Canon keeps coming up latest technology and deep in the mind wonder how long would it be before Nikon dump them by change the F mount.

-- George J Q Zhang (george.zhang@china.zeneca.com), March 02, 2000.

Any precisely what functional feature, dear George, would a new lens mount offer that you know for a fact can't be offered with the F mount? And, please, enlighten us about the facts upon which you base your preening supposition about Nikon's cliental.

-- chuck (chaohui@msn.com), March 02, 2000.

3)Poor amateurs who can only afford "normal" AF because pros and rich amateurs dropped them for AFS. Even AFI are relatively cheap.

-- Erick Lamontagne (METEO.YGP@GLOBETROTTER.NET), March 02, 2000.

The new AF-S Nikkors are completely different designs from their non-AF counterparts.

Some like the 17-35 and 28-70 cover new zoom ranges, others like the 300 2.8 and the 80-200 2.8 use different a optical formula. Considering that the 80-200 2.8 AI-S, the 80-200 2.8 AF, 80-200 2.8D and 80-200 2.8 AFD-N all had the same optic formula, 80-200 2.8 AF-S owners have to pay for more than just the "Silent Wave" motor.

BTW, the only design limitation of the F-mount is a lens speed limit of f 1.2. With the resurrection of the Nikon S-mount (rangefinder), we may once again see a 1.1 Nikkor lens (who knows, the S-mount may allow for even faster lenses).

-- Geoffrey S. Kane (grendel@nauticom.net), March 02, 2000.

Weelll, if you have an EOS, you can get to use the fabulous 50mm f/1.0 lens.

-- Ralph (ralpj@kcmmail.com), August 21, 2000.

Ok, all you equipment freaks out there, here is some food for thought:

Time and again, I see photo contests being won by shots taken with the likes of an $80 point & shoot.

I even saw one guy who used a 2000 mm f/1250 super telephoto pinhole camera he had made from the cardboard core in a roll of vinyl flooring.

Lets face it: Most of these endless debates about equipment minutiae come from folks who are doomed to go through life devoid of reativity and imagination.

-- Sober Second Thought (robert.lang3@sympatico.ca), August 27, 2000.

The Nikon AF-S lenses are more expensive compared to Canon USM because Canon licensed the technology to Nikon. Canon lenses had been using the Ultrasonic Motor(USM) for a long time. The AF-S prices will definitely be higher than Canon USM lenses because after being licensed the technology, Nikon will have to sell at a much higher price to profit. I hope that answers your question.

-- James Foyer (james@themail.com), May 02, 2001.

I am a canon user. The answer is simple because Nikon is better than Canon.

-- Yan Liu (yliu_salem@yahoo.com), June 30, 2001.

Perhaps chuck above should think? What can't be offered with the F mount? How about some SENSE?

The problem with the F mount now is that there are so many features that are only accessible with some lens/body combinations. EG, you can only use matrix metering with D series lenses (or the flash metering or something). You can only use AFS with much more recent bodies, such as the F5 and F100, and you can only use VR with the very latest bodies that have 5 focus points (which, laughably, excludes many of the best selling, or most notable F series (N in US) cameras, such as the F90/X, F70, F4, etc...

The other things are that you can't have an electromagnetic diaphragm, nor can you get rid of that stupid aperture ring. It is this ridiculous insistence on backwards compatibility that has caused all this, which means that there isn't really backward compatibility, because of all these things that will or will not work, depending on camera/body.

Canon is not so wonderful that nothing like this ever happens to them. There was the change-over from A-TTL to E-TTL flash metering, and there are some compatibility problems with IS and older bodies (more with the TCs than anything else). But you CAN take an EOS 650 and put a 600 f4L IS on it, and use all its features, and the features of the camera.

I think they were right to change as they did. They realised that you can only go on for so long on a system, and as technology changes, you must not be afraid to face the future, and leave the past behind.

As to the prices of AF-S lenses. Well, when Canon originally introduced the USM on the 300 F2.8L USM, was it cheap? I don't think so. It is expensive, but will come down in price.

Don't get me wrong about Nikon. I respect them, and I always tell people that the two best companies out there are nikon and canon, and which is best for them depends on what they want to do. I've introduced 2 friends to photography, and both plumped for Canon, but I made sure that they handled nikons, to see if that was what they wanted. Certainly for me, there's no going back from USM, IS and my beautiful L-series lenses.

Aside from that, if you have the money choose your lenses first. Then see which system they belong to, and buy the camera.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), July 10, 2001.

As a long time Nikon user, I see the points in almost everything said here. To me Canon's EOS change-over wasn't a big deal to them for they had no real stake in the professional market at the time. It worked for them, as I saw many Nikon users go Canon for the speed of the autofocus lenses, but now way could Nikon render all those older professional lenses (still being used by many today) obsolete without MANY pros being QUITE upset. After all, many people don't need AF and never will, but enjoy the 8FPS of the F5 with their old 300mm F2.8 AIS Nikkor lens. Why make them spend another $3500+ for a new lens if they are happy with what they have? This is where Nikon needed to (and did) remain loyal to the F mount and it's users.

What is odd now, is that both companies seem to be working towards common ground. Where I always felt Nikon had it over Canon was in metering, glass quality and overall durability of the camera bodies and pro lens barrels. I felt I could bash a mugger over the head a few times with my F4 and go right on shooting. The F5 and F100 fit that bill as well, however none of Canon's bodies (until the 1v) ever made me feel as secure. Canon surely has the advantage of ergonomically superior cameras and focusing speed, plus more lens selectivity. It's interesting to see both companies working towards a middle by enhancing their products to help match the other company's strength in the field.

Now as to the original question, why do AF-S lenses cost more than USM lenses? There might be some licensing issues with Canon, but I feel it's more in the fact that Nikon's ONLY step ahead of Canon anymore is the quality of their glass. This in no way means that Canon glass is of poor quality (IMHO), but I still like the look of Nikon glass a bit better. After all, when it comes down to it, the only thing between the subject and the film is the glass. Hence, you can decorate the camera with features galore, but that shutter will open for a short period of time, and the glass will magnify the reflected light from the image onto the film (or CCD, CMOS). Once could argue whose metering and program mode allow for better photos, but most professionals are in manual anyway and are ignoring the camera's fabulous ability to matrix or spot in 3D Color or not. Good old incident light is still a better choice that the best camera's meter evermade. So if you ask me, when you pay more for the AF-S you're buying a slightly better quality of glass. How if I were a Canon user would I switch for the quality? Not a chance.

I may, however, switch for the digital :) Nikon is ruling that department quite handedly.

-- Scott Einuis (photography@quickness.com), August 29, 2001.

"After all, many people don't need AF and never will, but enjoy the 8FPS of the F5 with their old 300mm F2.8 AIS Nikkor lens. Why make them spend another $3500+ for a new lens..."

Darn right, I bought a perfectly functionning 300/2.8 AIS for 800$ that I can use with my F100!

Both system have their pros and cons. You just gotta find which will suit your need.

-- Erick Lamontagne (ericklam@globetrotter.net), September 05, 2001.

I agree with the person who made the comment about people with point and shoots winning photo contests. What we often forget is that Capa and Cartier-Bresson were shooting with equipment far inferior to the low end SLRs of today. C'mon, Cartier-Bresson was setting shutter speeds and aperture by eye- no 3D matrix metering or even an old school center weighted selenium meter. I have a Pentax MZ-3 and a Pentax LX and I'll tell you what, I like my MZ-3 but I love my LX. I've no problems with pros needing expensive lenses for work but you chumps who are gettin' off going on about the virtues of USM over AF- S can kiss my black manual camera usin' ass. Long live "Slightly Out of Focus"! So shut the "F" up and buy what you can and want and just take decent photos. That's what it's all about.

-- Terrance Young (terrandabo@hotmail.com), September 13, 2001.

I was(and still because of my company equipment) a long time Nikon user for over 10 years, but I have recently switch over to Canon why? It is simple. I was able to sell all my Nikon(F5, N90s,F4s) and replaced with some high end Canon body and lenses. I sold my older AF- I 300mm and the AF-I 500mm and replaced with a used 400mm f2.8 and a use 600mm f4 and still have some money left!

I've used(and own) both AF-S, AF-I, and USM lenses in the past several years. I like the AF-S more than the current the AF-I, but the USM lens is very unique. For the first time I used the telephoto lens, it took me for awhile to figure out all the functions(focus present, focus limit,and a quick return focus which is very useful when you shoot sport).

I've tested side by side AF-S 400mm f2.8(my company lens with the D1) and my new 1V with 400mm f2.8 USM for my assignment(football, soccer and eagle flying) and I've found that both system are excellent. But, I must point out that Canon focusing is "little" smoother when used with focus tracking. Nikon sometime seemed to lose focus(with my old F5, N90s and D1) as the camera decided of which focus points to use (refer to dynamic autofocus).

Focusing noise is not much different, the AF-S motor seems to make more noise and you can always tell that the autofocus is working compare to Canon which seems to be very quiet. The AF-S built very well as the USM L series. The autofocus speed is no different both are fast.

I believe both system are excellent, it depend on your budget,and how you will use the it. The Nikon AF-S price now seems to come down a little compared to when it first came out(the AF-S 80-200mm now is little over $1,000)

-- Noppadol Paothong (noppadol22@hotmail.com), December 10, 2001.

>The Nikon AF-S lenses are more expensive compared to Canon USM because Canon licensed the technology to Nikon. Canon lenses had been using the Ultrasonic Motor(USM) for a long time.

This is the biggest load of garbage I have read in a very long time.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), March 02, 2002.

To say that canon glass is not as advanced as nikon glass is a load of garbage. In the end it doesn't matter if u dont have the eye you wont get great results, sure your pictures will be clear, sharp, and colorfull but they wont be woth lokking at. Its not the camera its the photographer. O and to answer the question in the beggining its probably just bbecause their new and their Nikon. :)

-- Nathan (thatguy7679@netscape.net), March 10, 2002.

sorry for all the spelling errors

-- nathan (same as above@net.net), March 11, 2002.