09-01-2015, 07:30 PM
Yawn. A 5 digit price tag isn't very high compared to the costs of deep space exploration. Yes, we got it you're working in a lab, Airy-discus. Don't need to tell every time lab stories. However we don't get it that you're getting there a five digit salary per month ^_^ because then I could understand your diminishing attitude. Can I also apply of such a 5 digit job at Lensrental's? Just kidding.
For less than 6 digits I don't get up in the morning.
Most people think more than twice before they exchange a lens for a 4 digit bill. Which means something between 1.000 and 9.999 € / $ / £ Quite a mouthful to swallow. And it might be easier to use % and not care about the number of coins. Nikon is heaving the price around 44% more for a lens which is - at least to me - not promising to be so much better than the old one. Plus this unclear VR situation - the 300/4 PF is not the only VR Nikon I have a hard time to consider it as good as the competition.
And because comparing is fun and I earn 6 digits a month (or a day? lost count :blink: ) I just tried to find out why Nikon was so keen to penalize Sigma for stealing their VR (they kept silent about Sigma's improvements, probably?), here we go:
![[Image: i-3pzBwwh-L.jpg]](https://sojujo.smugmug.com/photos/i-3pzBwwh/0/L/i-3pzBwwh-L.jpg)
Sigma 24-105 vs Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 @ 1/10
![[Image: i-W2h3JsB-L.jpg]](https://sojujo.smugmug.com/photos/i-W2h3JsB/0/L/i-W2h3JsB-L.jpg)
Nikkor 300/4 PF E VR (left) vs Sigma 150-600 Sports (right) @ 1/160
More of those comparisons to be found here
I must say, I was not that convinced of the outcome when I started my little test. I'm surprised Nikon's 300/4 although weighing only 25% of the Sigma didn't at least equal it. There's a little uncertainty in the "test" - I did only one shot for each setting and although I did AFMa, a little bit off the optimum is possible. Funny though the Sigmas don't suffer so much of that uncertainty...
For less than 6 digits I don't get up in the morning.
Most people think more than twice before they exchange a lens for a 4 digit bill. Which means something between 1.000 and 9.999 € / $ / £ Quite a mouthful to swallow. And it might be easier to use % and not care about the number of coins. Nikon is heaving the price around 44% more for a lens which is - at least to me - not promising to be so much better than the old one. Plus this unclear VR situation - the 300/4 PF is not the only VR Nikon I have a hard time to consider it as good as the competition.
And because comparing is fun and I earn 6 digits a month (or a day? lost count :blink: ) I just tried to find out why Nikon was so keen to penalize Sigma for stealing their VR (they kept silent about Sigma's improvements, probably?), here we go:
Sigma 24-105 vs Micro Nikkor 105/2.8 @ 1/10
Nikkor 300/4 PF E VR (left) vs Sigma 150-600 Sports (right) @ 1/160
More of those comparisons to be found here
I must say, I was not that convinced of the outcome when I started my little test. I'm surprised Nikon's 300/4 although weighing only 25% of the Sigma didn't at least equal it. There's a little uncertainty in the "test" - I did only one shot for each setting and although I did AFMa, a little bit off the optimum is possible. Funny though the Sigmas don't suffer so much of that uncertainty...