Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rocketman122" data-source="post: 311557" data-attributes="member: 14443">what about lenses? we shouldnt complain about those? 80-200 AFS sold for $1400 when launched, 70-200VR1 sold for $1650 when launched, 70-200VR2 sells for $2400. the 70-200 F4 sells for $1400 where the 80-200 2.8 AFD sold for $750. 28-70 AFS sold for $1400 when launched 24-70 AFS sells for $1900. wheres the proportion there? 17-35 AFS sold for $1400 when launched, now sells for $190080-400 AFS sells for $1000 more than the old 80-400. old 85 1.4 AFD sold for $1100 when launched, new ones sells for $1600.new 50mm 1.4 er 58mm sells for $1700 and cant do much more (unless youre pixel peeping and using a magnifying glass on 100% zoom) than the regular 50 1.4/1.8g's new 400 2.8 sells for $3000 more than old one. those are some ridiculous prices. wheres the proportions? add in inflation, thats fine, its still not in proportion to anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rocketman122, post: 311557, member: 14443"] what about lenses? we shouldnt complain about those? 80-200 AFS sold for $1400 when launched, 70-200VR1 sold for $1650 when launched, 70-200VR2 sells for $2400. the 70-200 F4 sells for $1400 where the 80-200 2.8 AFD sold for $750. 28-70 AFS sold for $1400 when launched 24-70 AFS sells for $1900. wheres the proportion there? 17-35 AFS sold for $1400 when launched, now sells for $1900 80-400 AFS sells for $1000 more than the old 80-400. old 85 1.4 AFD sold for $1100 when launched, new ones sells for $1600. new 50mm 1.4 er 58mm sells for $1700 and cant do much more (unless youre pixel peeping and using a magnifying glass on 100% zoom) than the regular 50 1.4/1.8g's new 400 2.8 sells for $3000 more than old one. those are some ridiculous prices. wheres the proportions? add in inflation, thats fine, its still not in proportion to anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification