Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   Deal Talk (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Nikon Lenses @ Rakuten - 50mm f/1.8D - $104.88 + S&H, 35mm f/1.8G - $176.95, 70-300mm - $99.95 (http://slickdeals.net/f/5958286-nikon-lenses-rakuten-50mm-f-1-8d-104-88-s-h-35mm-f-1-8g-176-95-70-300mm-99-95)

vip00 04-09-2013 11:12 AM

Nikon Lenses @ Rakuten - 50mm f/1.8D - $104.88 + S&H, 35mm f/1.8G - $176.95, 70-300mm - $99.95
 
65529 Attachment(s)
This should be a decent price on something that doesn't get discounted much (at least not from authorized sellers)

J & R (authorized dealer) currently has the Nikon 50mm for 124.88 + $6 S/H (at least for me) over on Rakuten.

Code IWANT20 (active today 12-2pm PST) should take off $20, making the price $104.88, the lowest I could find anywhere.

Link: http://www.rakuten.com/prod/nikon...43194.html

Similarly, Adorama has the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G for $196.95, which should come down to $176.95 with code IWANT20, easily the cheapest around. Make sure to select Adorama from the seller list!

Link: http://www.rakuten.com/prod/nikon...12932.html

Additionally, the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Nikkor lens is down to $99.95 with the code (from Adorama)

Link: http://www.rakuten.com/prod/nikon...31382.html

Potentially even better with 5% back in Super Points as well as up to 5% CB.

ppt 04-09-2013 11:54 AM

Good price for 35mm 1.8g. Other two lenses are AF only, so not working with D3100, D5100, etc.

Got 35mm about a month ago with a $20 off deal and I love it!

likeundu 04-09-2013 12:06 PM

The code does not work. Says "Invalid Code"??

vip00 04-09-2013 12:08 PM

It appears there's an issue with the code... we'll have to see if they fix it!

Okay, looks like it's being buggy... you have to add another item to get the coupon to work, then remove the item before checking out. This works to activate the coupon: http://www.rakuten.com/prod/canon...94669.html

HornetNZ 04-09-2013 12:36 PM

Repped, in for one! It was a pain to go all the way thru cart, add coupon, back out to remove 2nd product and re-checkout...but it worked! 1 35mm lens for $176...woot! I've been waiting to pull the trigger to get one of these in my camera bag!

likeundu 04-09-2013 12:39 PM

The code works for only one item per customer.

Nailer 04-09-2013 12:56 PM

my 18-55 lens fell down and is not functioning correctly ( has hard time focusing), do you guys suggest to buy 18-55 again or any other 18-XXX lens?
( I have 35mm prime and 55-300)

shnitz 04-09-2013 01:00 PM

The 35mm is an awesome awesome lens, as I've said before in threads. I think every Nikon slr owner should have one.

As for the 50mm D and the 70-300mm, they're both anachronisms; skip them. The 50mm f/1.8G is noticeably better in optical performance, and worth the added investment. The D version doesn't even work on lower end cameras, so if you're willing to spend $900, up to the $3,000 that the higher end cameras are costing the can take advantage of this lens, then it's a bit skewed to then save $100 on a lens that performs that much worse.

And the same is true for the 70-300mm. If you're buying the $900+ cameras that can autofocus with that lens, then it's silly to not just spend a little more and get a lens that, while more expensive, is a better value for the money by virtue of better image quality, better focus motor, features, etc. My personal pick is the tamron 70-300mm vc which is a great performing lens in all aspects.

shnitz 04-09-2013 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nailer (Post 58761386)
my 18-55 lens fell down and is not functioning correctly ( has hard time focusing), do you guys suggest to buy 18-55 again or any other 18-XXX lens?
( I have 35mm prime and 55-300)

For image quality, the only worthwhile upgrades are the 17-55mm f/2.8, the 16-85mm VR, or the sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS. The 18-105mm is convenient, but unless it came as a kit lens or I found it on a very slick deal, I wouldn't be paying for one.

SDreseller 04-09-2013 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shnitz (Post 58761474)
The 35mm is an awesome awesome lens, as I've said before in threads. I think every Nikon slr owner should have one.

As for the 50mm D and the 70-300mm, they're both anachronisms; skip them. The 50mm f/1.8G is noticeably better in optical performance, and worth the added investment. The D version doesn't even work on lower end cameras, so if you're willing to spend $900, up to the $3,000 that the higher end cameras are costing the can take advantage of this lens, then it's a bit skewed to then save $100 on a lens that performs that much worse.

And the same is true for the 70-300mm. If you're buying the $900+ cameras that can autofocus with that lens, then it's silly to not just spend a little more and get a lens that, while more expensive, is a better value for the money by virtue of better image quality, better focus motor, features, etc. My personal pick is the tamron 70-300mm vc which is a great performing lens in all aspects.

answered a bunch of my questions. Just got a d7000 and was wondering whether i should get one of these lenses or spend a bit more for AF-S. Thanks

likeundu 04-09-2013 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDreseller (Post 58761860)
answered a bunch of my questions. Just got a d7000 and was wondering whether i should get one of these lenses or spend a bit more for AF-S. Thanks

The D7000 has a built in focus motor, so you would be fine getting the AF lens.

berto 04-09-2013 01:26 PM

Nice, too bad CA tax kills it

Nailer 04-09-2013 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shnitz (Post 58761566)
For image quality, the only worthwhile upgrades are the 17-55mm f/2.8, the 16-85mm VR, or the sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS. The 18-105mm is convenient, but unless it came as a kit lens or I found it on a very slick deal, I wouldn't be paying for one.

humm..thanks..will compare price and performance for all the 3 you recommended...

upoy 04-09-2013 01:51 PM

would 70-300mm work for D5100?

likeundu 04-09-2013 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upoy (Post 58762770)
would 70-300mm work for D5100?

No. Unless you want to use the manual focus.

worthmining 04-09-2013 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shnitz (Post 58761474)
The 35mm is an awesome awesome lens, as I've said before in threads. I think every Nikon slr owner should have one.

As for the 50mm D and the 70-300mm, they're both anachronisms; skip them. The 50mm f/1.8G is noticeably better in optical performance, and worth the added investment. The D version doesn't even work on lower end cameras, so if you're willing to spend $900, up to the $3,000 that the higher end cameras are costing the can take advantage of this lens, then it's a bit skewed to then save $100 on a lens that performs that much worse.

And the same is true for the 70-300mm. If you're buying the $900+ cameras that can autofocus with that lens, then it's silly to not just spend a little more and get a lens that, while more expensive, is a better value for the money by virtue of better image quality, better focus motor, features, etc. My personal pick is the tamron 70-300mm vc which is a great performing lens in all aspects.

You're wrong. Nikon's AF-I lens such as 50 1.8D and 70-300mm here are better lens but selling cheap, this is a huge advantage of using Nikon camera, there are plenty old AF lens can be bought at a big discount. The new 70-300mm which can AF with D5100/3100 is selling at a price 5 times more with no significant optical benefits than this one.

A Nikon with built AF motor that is required to use AF for these lenses starts from D7000, not really a "high end" but the entry level serious DSLR, whereas D5100/3100 are consumer point & shoot DSLR who use it as P&S. My personal opinion, instead of D5100/3100, might as well get NEX or M43 which make more sense to these type of buyers.

Sigma or tamron's lenses, are always lower quality than Nikon or Canon's own, that's well known fact. The price difference is well justified. Or if it is any good it aren't cheap. So ther is not much a short in lens choices, except the old AF-I Nikon lenses, which is a bargain.

squall8960 04-09-2013 02:13 PM

For the 35mm, how does the distortion compare to it's 50mm counterpart?

SDreseller 04-09-2013 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worthmining (Post 58763254)
You're wrong. Nikon's AF-I lens such as 50 1.8D and 70-300mm here are better lens but selling cheap, this is a huge advantage of using Nikon camera, there are plenty old AF lens can be bought at a big discount. The new 70-300mm which can AF with D5100/3100 is selling at a price 5 times more with no significant optical benefits than this one.

A Nikon with built AF motor that is required to use AF for these lenses starts from D7000, not really a "high end" but the entry level serious DSLR, whereas D5100/3100 are consumer point & shoot DSLR who use it as P&S. My personal opinion, instead of D5100/3100, might as well get NEX or M43 which make more sense to these type of buyers.

Sigma or tamron's lenses, are always lower quality than Nikon or Canon's own, that's well known fact. The price difference is well justified. Or if it is any good it aren't cheap. So ther is not much a short in lens choices, except the old AF-I Nikon lenses, which is a bargain.

The VR in the newer 70-300 might be worth the extra dough and possibly be much easier to sell.

shnitz 04-09-2013 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worthmining (Post 58763254)
You're wrong. Nikon's AF-I lens such as 50 1.8D and 70-300mm here are better lens but selling cheap, this is a huge advantage of using Nikon camera, there are plenty old AF lens can be bought at a big discount. The new 70-300mm which can AF with D5100/3100 is selling at a price 5 times more with no significant optical benefits than this one.

A Nikon with built AF motor that is required to use AF for these lenses starts from D7000, not really a "high end" but the entry level serious DSLR, whereas D5100/3100 are consumer point & shoot DSLR who use it as P&S. My personal opinion, instead of D5100/3100, might as well get NEX or M43 which make more sense to these type of buyers.

Sigma or tamron's lenses, are always lower quality than Nikon or Canon's own, that's well known fact. The price difference is well justified. Or if it is any good it aren't cheap. So ther is not much a short in lens choices, except the old AF-I Nikon lenses, which is a bargain.


You are mis-speaking; perhaps you don't know as much about cameras as you think that you do. The AF-I lenses were super expensive lenses from the mid 1990's.

And I don't know why you think that the "50 1.8D and 70-300mm here are better lens," because they aren't. The 50mm, while sharp in the center, has ATROCIOUS bokeh, and it also doesn't deliver the expected performance across the frame that you'd expect. So, even if your camera, such as the D7000 or the D600 autofocuses with this, then for the image quality alone you owe it to yourself to spend the extra money.

The 70-300mm similarly is rather disappointing optically. If you MUST have a cheap telephoto lens, get yourself the 55-200mm VR or 55-300mm VR, which don't SUCK like the 70-300mm G. The 70-300mm VR actually IS much much much better optically, not to mention the VR and the SWM autofocus. The 70-300mm G with its dinky 13 elements just can't keep up with the resolving capabilities and the increased demand of digital sensors.

The reason that these two lenses are an anachronism is because they are cheap, but none of the cheap cameras can use them. You seem to think that I disregard all non AF-S lenses, but that isn't true. There are many gems. Unfortunately, these two plastic fantastics aren't included in that list.



Also, the D7000 is absolutely not entry level, and you have to be out of your mind to think that a camera that came out with a $1,200 MSRP deserves to be regarded anywhere near "entry." Plus, that's only the CHEAPEST camera that one would consider today with a focus motor. Stepping up from there, you're telling people that bought the $2,000 D600 or $3,000 D800 that it's okay to skimp on lenses, when it's just not okay. You're better off buying a D5100 and great lenses than buying a full frame camera and crappy lenses.

Last, you're a fool for blowing off anything not made by Nikon. Nikon's engineers aren't privy to any laws of physics not available to anyone else; last I checked they were still just hiring engineers that graduated from the same schools as everyone else. A lens is simply a collection of glass, metal, and plastic that focuses a subject onto a plane. You're drinking the Kool-Aid if you think that by virtue of being a Nikon lens, it is any better than the competition. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a prime example, as it has shamed Nikon and Canon for a fraction of the cost. I'd put Sigma's and Tamron's macro lenses up against anything from the first party makers as well. Plus, the Tamron 70-300mm VC beats the Nikon 70-300mm VR, sorry buddy. It is better performing optically, has an incredible image stabilization system, AND it's cheaper. Wake up, because you're stuck in the matrix, happily living in ignorance.


As to whether to get a lower end SLR or an interchangeable mirrorless camera, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. A mirrorless camera doesn't have the system of an entry-level SLR, i.e. when you start adding the flash, dizzying array of lenses, capability to shoot sports and wildlife (go try and shoot a soccer or baseball game with a micro 4/3 camera, or birds in flight, and then come back here so that I can laugh at your keeper rate), etc. I have a micro 4/3 camera, by the way, and really enjoy using it. There are many times that I take it out, but it is no replacement in many ways to an SLR.

jcis 04-09-2013 09:36 PM

Do you guys think i should pull the trigger on the 35mm? I've justo got a d3100 with the kit lens and have read that i should use it extensively and see what kind of shots i like and then decide on lenses
Do you think we will see a better deal later on? Say black friday?
Thanks

shnitz 04-09-2013 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcis (Post 58770396)
Do you guys think i should pull the trigger on the 35mm? I've justo got a d3100 with the kit lens and have read that i should use it extensively and see what kind of shots i like and then decide on lenses
Do you think we will see a better deal later on? Say black friday?
Thanks

Well, I wouldn't lose out on half a year of photos just for a chance to maybe save $10-$20, but that's just me. Maybe your situation is different, like you are a Chinese factory worker that earns 17 cents an hour.

shaddai 04-10-2013 06:27 AM

Anyone considering these lenses should check out Ken's Nikon reviews:

kenrockwell.com

That bokeh comment by shnitz was pretty much spot on. Hope the reviews help!

ppt 04-10-2013 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcis (Post 58770396)
Do you guys think i should pull the trigger on the 35mm? I've justo got a d3100 with the kit lens and have read that i should use it extensively and see what kind of shots i like and then decide on lenses
Do you think we will see a better deal later on? Say black friday?
Thanks

Do yourself a favor and buy the 35mm 1.8g. You won't be dissapointed! I played with D3100 for a while and was not getting the 'better' pictures of my kids indoors. I jumped on a deal ($20 off $50 at Rakuten) and now I keep 35mm in camera all the time. Compared to the kit lens, it produces great low light pictures and amazing bokeh.

So next time when the price drops to $180, don't think, buy it!

revoc 04-10-2013 09:15 AM

Has anyone gotten the IWANT20 code to work? I have the 35mm from Adorama in my cart. It says invalid code when I try to use it. I also tried the trick of adding something to my cart that someone mentioned in an earlier post and that doesn't work either.

edit: nevermind, the code expired.

jcis 04-10-2013 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shnitz (Post 58771588)
Well, I wouldn't lose out on half a year of photos just for a chance to maybe save $10-$20, but that's just me. Maybe your situation is different, like you are a Chinese factory worker that earns 17 cents an hour.

HAHAHA not chinese, but mexican, so almost spot on! i guess my question was pretty much out of ignorance since i'm a total noob with a DSLR and totally agree, 20-30 bucks dont make much of a difference

thanks shnitz

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppt (Post 58774100)
Do yourself a favor and buy the 35mm 1.8g. You won't be dissapointed! I played with D3100 for a while and was not getting the 'better' pictures of my kids indoors. I jumped on a deal ($20 off $50 at Rakuten) and now I keep 35mm in camera all the time. Compared to the kit lens, it produces great low light pictures and amazing bokeh.

So next time when the price drops to $180, don't think, buy it!

Thanks ppt
i'll keep this in mind next time i see such a deal again


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:52 PM.


1999-2014