You can now rent the Nikon 800mm f/5.6 lens for $529 for 3 days

Nikon 800mm f5.6E FL ED VR lens for rent

You don't have spare $18k for a new lens? BorrowLenses received their first Nikkor 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR and the lens is currently available for rent. The price for 3 days is $529, insurance is $108 and shipping is $40:


This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Spy Black

    3 weeks for 1/10th the price…

  • Art

    Hmmmmm… Nice margins! Maybe I need to be in the lens rental business. (On the other hand, maybe I have something better to do with my time and does a great job already.)

  • Lee Saxon

    You know you’re really supposed to disclose when you post an advertisement that looks like a blog post….

    • fjfjjj

      He does the same thing with Think Tank Photo products. Annoying and illegal. Complaint has been filed with Federal Trade Commission. Nice job demoting this post. Straighten out your game, Peter, and start some disclosure. Pretty simple.

    • Eric Calabos

      I don’t call a post that proves “it has silly price even for renting” an advertisement

      • Anon

        It is an advertisement when the link is an affiliate link.

      • Lee Saxon

        Very visible company logo, promotional image, extensive pricing details, a link directly to the product page, and you didn’t know it was an ad?

        You may be interested in this bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn…

    • kugyftdr

      you for real?

    • Canson

      You must be new on the Internet.

      • Lee Saxon

        I’m not saying I’m surprised it’s happening, just that it shouldn’t be happening.

        • san

          You know Lee, you can always run your own site…

          As for me, as long as the comments moderation is fair, it’s alright.

    • robert

      the guy needs to make money to keep the site going. dont you like the site? I also think he gets some money if you click the link. so help him out and click it.

    • RonsterWVU

      I don’t understand why this bothers you so much. I think the post is meant to show how ridiculous it is to rent the lens. It so happens that borrow lenses is the first site that the Mod. found that rents this lens, and I guess he wanted to credit the sight.

      I figured you as a photographer would understand being credited.

  • Ranger Bo-Bo the III

    I like how the asian guy has the longer, bigger lens.

    • robert

      but in real life…

    • Ginko Bilobah

      It’s a substitute for other deficiencies …;-)

      • dnguyen

        As well as the tats.

    • Guest

      I guess it’s a representation of their respective brain size.

  • well lets say you are going to African Safari for 2 weeks. It is totally worth it because you probably would never need such a lens ever again in your life

    • commenter

      You will be perfect target for thieves not animals 😛

    • ninpou_kobanashi

      Unless you fell in love with it, and then you’d be in a world of hurt (^_^)

  • Trollprozac

    I wonder if they’d get upset if I painted it Lizard Green™.

    • asd

      not if it is military grade

    • AlphaTed

      They won’t be upset. Just consider yourself a new owner of an 800 f/5.6 lens.

  • robert

    id buy the 400 2.8. less weight, half the money and almost the same IQ with the TC. maybe a bit less but its negligible as these are high end. the 800 is certainly not 2x the IQ for the price.

    • Spy Black

      Considering that’s as close to a perfect optic as has ever been produced, while I would agree about the pricing, you’re not going to get “almost the same IQ”. Put a TC on any lens and you have crap.

      • genotypewriter

        “Put a TC on any lens and you have crap…”

        What an idiotic statement.

        Do you ever listen to yourself? Ah, no you don’t, I see.

        • Pablo Ricasso

          Agree, abrasive blanket statements like those don’t help any discussion and just show knowledge of the poster on the topic.

          • Spy Black

            It’s OK, you’re still free to put a TC on your lenses and make your images look like crap.

            • neversink

              I’ve had great success shooting on assignment using TCs when necessary. Image degradation is minimal. My clients have never complained when I shot with a TC attached.

            • neonspark

              depends on your standards. TCs even on the Nikon telephotos have noticeable impacts on image quality compared to the naked lens. anybody who doesn’t notice it is simply not looking, ignoring it, or just lives with it. But the degradation is there.

            • neversink

              neonspark – The degradation is minimal. I get the pics I need. The editors pick them out and they can’t tell the difference between the one’s with TCs and without. You want to blow it up to six feet, then you can see the subtle differences. Otherwise, it is nearly impossible. There is little or no degradation. You should try it out before you knock it but since you harp this on every thread, you probably just can’t afford the TC’s and they won’t fit on your coolpix.

              Honestly, nearly every pro I know swears by all the NIkon TCs. Of course you can get the best photos without the TCs but in my experience with many lenses, the difference is barely noticeable. So, you try some of these TCs out and you might be pleasantly surprised.

            • neonspark

              “minimal” to some is “unacceptable” to many.

            • neversink

              “Minimal” IQ with TCs you say??? Not to my editors, and they pay me big bucks for my photos. You do not know what you are talking about. Nikon would not be able to sell these TCs to so many pros if the image degradation was unacceptable. I get crystal clear results when I have to use the TCs and I don’t even hesitate about using them. My editors, and even more importantly, my wife, call me a perfectionist — and I never hesitate about using the TCs to get the best result for the shot if I need to use them.
              Years ago, when i started out in this business, I wouldn’t use a TC, but today’s Nikon TCs are superb.

            • neonspark

              for the rest of us, it doesn’t matter what YOUR editors let you get away with. so your point is moot.

            • neversink

              My editors put out all sorts of magazines and books.

              Now, as far as TCs go, there is some IQ degradation, as stated before, but it is much better to use a TC with good shooting technique that will ensure sharp images, than to crop. Also, all your lenses and tc’s need to be tested before use. There are lemons out there. The TC 1.4 has the least degradation. The TC 1.7 isn’t bad and I have heard mixed results on the TC 20iii. I happen to think that the 20iii is great with primes as well as with the 70-200 2.8, particularly if you can stop down to f8, although I have no problem with getting sharp images with the 70-200 f/2.8 with the TC20iiie….

              When do you think image degradation when using a pc can be seen with the naked eye when using the D800? Not until you start to make 4foot by 6 foot prints!!!!

              I have been in this business professionally since 1974. Neophytes like you who are rude, and pretend they know everything there is to know about photography are not only a bore, but a dime a dozen. You can’t just use test results taken in a lab and then plotted on a chart to prove your point. You need to get up out of your chair and test your lenses with different TCs. You might be surprised.

            • neonspark

              oh my lord are you going to shut up about your editors or what? want to keep using your TCs? fine go ahead. Stop insisting we all need to fall in line with your editors, or your quality standards.

            • neversink

              People like you are ruining sites like this with your holier than thou standards. I would suggest you talk to the many, many other pros who also use TCs in their work. Many talk about their successful use of TCs on the web — all you have to do is search. Further, I don’t know what kind of “standards” you are talking about that you share with the rest of the world

            • neonspark

              keep your quality standards to yourself. TC = quality degradation period. this is a FACT.

            • neversink

              Never said there wasn’t IQ degradation. Just said that the degradation was minimal. Would I rather shoot without a TC. Of course not. But does the quality degrade by 100 percent. Not even close.

              Let me say it again.

              Will their be some degradation for increasing the focal length by 100 percent? Yes there will be. Will there be 100 Percent degradation? NOPE. with the tc 2.0iii, according to my tests, it appears that the degradation is between 15 and 22 percent. There is much less degradation with the tc 1.7 and the tc1.4. But of course the focal length that you gain is also less, So cropping images by the same amount will cause much more degradation than using a TC. Sometimes one must compromise and take the best method out there.

              That is a FACT

            • neonspark

              there doesn’t have to be a 100 percent degradation to be noticeable degradation. clearly your standards of acceptable quality are lower.

            • neversink

              No, my standards aren’t lower — and you don’t read my comments clearly. Let’s say I have my 500mm lens and I need to take a pic of the lighthouse in the middle of the river but it is still too far away for the shot I want and there are no boats available to get closer. I have two choices.

              1. I can take the photo with the 2.0iiie TC which will double my focal length and frame the photo perfectly the way I envision it. Yes, I will get between 15 and 22% degradation (according to my tests on the f2.8 70-200 — I expect less degradation with the prime) — (of course this degradation won’t show up until I enlarge the image to about 4X6 feet using the D800.)

              2. Or I can take the pic without the TC and crop 50% of the image later, giving me the same focal length, but the cropping will degrade the image by 100 percent in quality. Degradation will be much easier to spot when a 50% cropped image is blown up versus the same image taken with the relative TC.

              Thanks so much for understanding why a TC is necessary at times and why photographers use them when conditions require one.

            • neonspark

              you’re pulling %s out of your rear. stop it. TC = compromise in quality. period.

            • neversink

              Stop pretending you are a know it all. You obviously don’t have the experience. I NEVER said using TCs wasn’t a compromise. It’s the better compromise than cropping. Much much better.

              I test every lens I buy including the TCs. On occasion I have had to return a lens.
              I am not pulling percentages from thin air.

              Here is how I tested my three TCs on the 70-200 f/2.8 lens:

              I took a number of different photographs three different ways so the subject was framed the same way.Let’s say I was testing the TC2.0iiie; and let’s say I was testing the lens set at 200mm.

              1. I would first frame the subject and then shoot it from point A so it was framed the way I wanted it to be framed.

              2. Then I would double the distance from the subject, mount the 2x TC and frame and shoot the subject from point B. The subject would then be framed exactly as the subject was framed in the first photo.

              3. Then I would dismount the TC, and photograph it from the same point B as in example 2. This photograph would then be cropped 50% in an image editing software to match the framing of photos 1 and 2 above.

              4. Then I compared the same enlarged sections of each image with one another. As I kept enlarging them, I would compare image quality including sharpness, contrast, color, aberration etc. When I zoomed into the images, the cropped image from point B above was the first to degrade (Image #3.) While the other two images still looked identical to the naked eye. As I continued to zoom in on the computer, the next photo that showed degradation was image #2, the image taken with the TC attached. The photo with the least degradation, of course, was the first pic taken (image #1.) Yes, even this image eventually matched the degradation in IQ of images 2 & 3.

              I figured out the percentages of degradation by comparing the magnification where degradation began for all three images. Why the 15-22% difference between the first image and the second image was because I made different test at different apertures. F/8 and f?11 having the lowest degradation with this TC and lens combination.

              There you have it. Using TCs, when needed, is a much better compromise than cropping. Now go ahead and call me some more names.

              Further, if you check Nasim Mansurvos website, you will see that his test results with the TCs are similar to my results. I have slightly better results with the TC2.0iiie than he does, but only minimally. Please continue to call me names.

            • neonspark

              stop pissing against the wind. you’re not convincing anybody with your arguments that the image quality degradation should be acceptable. Introducing a TC into ANY optical system causes noticeable image degradation and this is just a matter of physics. You’re entitled to your opinion but you’re not entitled to your FACTS. So far you’ve argued why you are ok with the degradation of quality. Are you so insecure that you need to keep trying to make a case? Keep at it, you’re being hilarious.

            • neonspark

              I wasn’t going to bother debunking your nonsense but I found this too hilarious to miss:

              “.. figured out the percentages of degradation by comparing the magnification where degradation began for all three images…”

              This is entirely flawed analysis. you cannot measure the negative effects of a TC by just accounting for its magnification. You’re assuming the TC is a perfect entity which does not add optical issues of itself. This assumption is flat out wrong as the optical system in a TC also adds further degradation in addition to magnifying the lens’ being TC’ed flaws. We know this because comparing 2X TCs from Nikon over the decades we can see that while magnification is the same, image quality isn’t. Nikon is quite proud to point that out with each new generation of TCs.

              second, your ENTIRE measure of image degradation is flawed. To really measure optical performance such as variances in contrast, acutance, resolution, CA, and map those across the image area, in order to validate claims on TC usage, you need sophisticated rigs and software, often bypassing the camera completely and testing just the optical apparatus with special rigs that cost far more than a complete set of the Nikon telephotos. Your “to my eye” measurements, amount to little more than just internet advise: in other words, meaningless rambling. It is well known because of basic optics theory that the a TC is ALWAYS about making a tradeoff, and comes at the expense of quality because it has a direct impact on the effective resolution of the total apparatus, among other quantities. This is quite simply a non debatable fact. You add a TC, you’ve lost quality, period.

              so keep your bogus %s to yourself, and stop spreading flawed and ignorant conclusions.

            • neversink

              Here is an article for you to peruse on IG degradation with TCs.


              Did I say there wasn’t a tradeoff using TCs? Of course there is. Did I say you don’t lose quality. Of course you do, but it is not to the extent that you are screaming about. There is a time when you might need a TC, and there is little choice. Crop, or use a TC. Use of a TC will be a far better choice, depending upon the lens used.
              You chide me about the use of my eye. I’ve been a professional photographer for 40 years and have never had a problem with my eye. You can quote all the charts you want, but in the end the best results are how the photo looks with the naked eye.

              Take a look at the link above and maybe you will come to understand that the use of TCs can give excellent results, despite the compromise.

            • neonspark

              screaming about? you’ve posted paragraphs of ramblings and I’m screaming about the fact the degradation may not be acceptable to some of us? first of all, you need to get off your high horse. You’re free to use whatever image degradation devices you can mount, and you know what that is fine. It is fine because nobody else has to do as you do specially if they don’t find the compromises acceptable. period.

            • edittheworld

              you lost me when you started saying “my editors”… be honest did you put that with total humility or with a pissing contest attitude? Lighten up!

            • neversink

              Not really… No pissing contest!! Didn’t mean for it to sound offensive… It’s true. When one has an assignment, one has to deal with editors, creative directors, art directors…. some are easy to work with and some are downright nasty, but most know what they are doing…

              I’m a perfectionist when it comes to photography, but if I have to get the shot done, I will compromise and use a TC when on assignment, only if I have no other choice. The images are still damn sharp with them on, no matter what the naysayers on this board think.

              If there was so much IQ degradation, I wouldn’t use them — and years ago, I never used the old TCs when I was shooting film. But the new generation of TCs are outstanding. And what I was implying was that my editors can’t tell the difference when they use a photo with a TC or not. All they want is a good photo, well composed, and sharp that tells the story. No bragging rights were intended here. I’m sorry if that is what you thought. Just wanted to convey that the persnickety and pedantic editors I must work with accept the rare photos I take with TCs without hesitation or question.

              I certainly threw myself into this topic without hesitation, and I apologize for some of the verbose comments.

              Personally, I’d rather photograph without editors, particularly in the era of instant digital photography.

              (Off Topic — I miss the days of film when I could bring my exposed rolls to the custom lab, go have dinner and a beer with a colleague, come back to the lab, peruse the contact prints or positives, call the client and messenger them over or pick out the best ones and have prints made for them…. Now everyone wants the finished image on their desk before the shutter is even pressed!!!)

      • robert

        maybe at most 10-15% less but it can be boosted with some sharpening and editing that the image wouldnt show it, unless youre zooming in at 100%. the tc’s are of high quality and so is the 400. really a stellar lens.

        I just think 18k is really way too greedy from nikon. if it was 13k or 14k it would be a fair acceptable price to me.

        but since they wont sell so many the price is a premium, still, I have a lot I can do with and extra $8500.

        and I would feel very content shooting with the 400/tc combo than a guy standing next to me using his 800.

        • Pablo Pixasso

          But I think the new lens outresolves the 400 without the converter and also weighs less.

        • Spy Black

          I’ll agree again that the price is completely insane, but a converter, especially a 2x, is not gonna come anywhere near what you’re hoping to get. In all honesty, I have to question the price of any lens that passes the $3000 mark in today’s dollars, but it is what it is.

          • fred

            The 800 comes with a special teleconverter. According to you they goofed, the image quality is no good. Such a waste of R&D.

            • neonspark

              the image quality with the TC is inferior, yes Nikon said so per their MTF charts.
              Spy Black’s point is that a 2X TC is brutal, and the 400mm lens already is inferior to the 800mm as per their MTF charts.
              guys get over it, you can’t get to 800mm and match the 800mm prime lens. It’s the sharpest lens Nikon has ever created and nothing will ever touch it no matter how much you try to argue.

            • neversink

              Using a tc is not brutal on IQ. Obviously you haven’t used the Nikon TCs. Image degradation is much much worse, probably brutal, when you have to crop to get the same desired focal length instead of attaching a TC.
              I haven’t tested the 800 to see if it is more noticeably sharper than the 600, 500, 400, 200 f/2.0. Have you done these tests? I doubt you will see any difference with your naked eye. Those are all exceptionally sharp lenses.

            • Spy Black

              It’s still going to degrade the image quality, inasmuch as that particular unit is CUSTOM ENGINEERED for the 800. Your typical TC is not, and will degrade IQ further. Much more intelligent to get a high res body and crop. As someone else mentioned here, you also get to keep your maximum aperture going this route.

          • neversink

            In all honesty, you have no idea what you are talking about. The TC will give you great results on the 800 but you will definitely need to be aware of atmospheric conditions. You will also have to manually focus as you will have an f11 aperture wide open.


      Also, doubling the focal length does NOT double the “IQ” ever. Just FYI

    • neonspark

      “almost the same IQ with the TC”
      in your dreams probably.

  • There are several disadvantages in the 800mm. For one thing, the minimum focusing distance is not as good as say a 600mm or 500mm. Secondly, a 600mm with 1.4X TC will give you 840mm at f5.6. The image quality is excellent and unless you are a pixel peeper, you will not see the difference in image quality. And thirdly, the price of the 800mm is quite a jump from the 600mm. And I suspect that when Nikon update their other long tele lenses like the 300, 400, 500 and 600mm, the 600mm is likely to be cheaper and lighter.

    • Spy Black

      “..the minimum focusing distance is not as good as say a 600mm or 500mm.”
      So you won’t be able to get up close and personal with that pack of wild hyenas?

      “The image quality is excellent and unless you are a pixel peeper, you will not see the difference in image quality.”
      Dude, NOBODY buys any of these lenses to NOT pixel peep, and no, you’re NOT going to get EXCELLENT image quality from ANYTHING with a TC on it.

      • neversink

        Sorry, please define what you mean by excellent. How much do I have to blow up my images before I see degradation in IQ. The point being, as I stated before, today’s TCs are incredible. Yes, there is some loss of image quality, but only a small percentage. I repeat:

        “I’ve had great success shooting on assignment using TCs when necessary. Image degradation is minimal. My clients have never complained when I shot with a TC attached.”

        • neonspark

          it doesn’t matter. TCs always degrade quality never improve it. The 800mmFL lens already has a superior MTF to the 600mm. Adding a TC to the 600mm only makes it more inferior.
          Spy Black makes the point: you’re spending tens of thousands on lenses because of the image quality they deliver. Slapping a TC will NEVER achieve the same optical quality and if you’re shooting big glass, that is what you’re after. A TC is a compromise, nothing more.

          • neversink

            In all honesty, you have no idea what you are talking about. The TC 2.0iiie will still probably give you great results on the 800 but you will definitely need to be aware of atmospheric conditions. You will also have to manually focus as you will have an f11 aperture wide open.
            Will their be some degradation for increasing the focal length by 100 percent? Yes there will be. Will there be 100 Percent degradation. NOPE. with the tc 2.0iiie according to my tests, it appears that the degradation is between 15 and 22 percent, depending which lenses you use and what aperture you shoot at. Less with the tc 1.7 and the tc1.4. So cropping images will cause more degradation than using a TC to get the same effective focal length.

            I use these all on the 500 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 from time to time with excellent results

      • Jeffnky

        I agree with your point, how can adding anything between lens lens and camera will affect the quality. Those on here keep arguing they get good enough with a tc are missing your point which I agree with 100%. I have at least 6 tc’s and every time I have used one I am disappointed, I have been a sports photographer for over 20 years, and I go back to not using them.

        Your right about using digital zoom that now works way better, I have been using a d800 for a few months now and my word for it is still magic. I feel as though nikon has given me the biggest set of lenses for free because I can zoom in so much with spectacular results. Just wed playing in the park I took 2 shots that I have seen for years but thought would be technically too hard to get. With the 800 I set it to 1.5 crop and still get a huge file to zoom in on so I use my 120-300 sigma 2.8 and I can handle whatever happens. It has changed my work and made it even more fun.

        • neonspark

          not to mention, cropping, unlike a TC, doesn’t hit your effective aperture. that f2.8 still a true f2.8

    • jmj

      Minimum focus distance is 20 ft or 6m. What’s the point of having 800mm lens if you are taking photos of subjects closer than that?

      • Mr. Mamiya

        In other words: On a DX camera a subject of 20 cm width will fill the frame at 6m distance. Not too bad.

        • orpickaname

          20cm is almost the you know what of my you know what. Not too bad indeed.

          • Mr. Mamiya

            And you want me to take photographs of that, or what?

            • orpickaname

              Just sayin’, Mr. Mamiya.

      • fjfjjj

        I use my 800mm with a 6 foot extension tube.

    • Math is not your strong suit is it Alan. 1.4 times 800mm is not 840mm. Try again.

      • Allen_Wentz

        1.4 x 600mm = 840 mm

        • AlphaTed

          LOL. Somebody needs glasses … or contacts. 🙂

          • upuaut

            Or has a lazy left eye. JK, of course.

    • Can’t Believe It

      If you need a shorter minimum focus, just slap an extension tube in there. Or buy the world’s largest Cannon 500D closeup filter.

      • Smudger

        We’ve been waiting for Nikon’s AF compatible tubes for over 20 years…………

    • neonspark

      wait a minute, you’re buying a 600mm so you can shoot closer to your subject? I think you need your head checked.

  • Brian

    18 ten day rentals and the lens is paid for. These rates are outrageous.

    • sense of entitlement

      They actually are not outrageous. In all honesty what would be a fair rate?

      • Brian

        Does a car rental place get their money back in such short time?

        • jot

          Who knows?. Cars are not a specialty item. This is more like does an exotic car rental get their money back. It is not about how fast you make back your money that sets the price. If no one rents it they will probably lower the price.

      • neonspark

        lens rentals and similar services are highly overpriced. If you’re lucky to live near camera stores that rent gear, you often pay 50-80% of the rates. For example, I rented the AF-S 300 f/2.8 for $75 3 day rental. Lens rentals wants 165 dollars for the same item + UPS blue shipping fees.

        These big online rentals stores can get away with it because this market lacks a company that will drive the prices down.

      • u

        Nikon is charging too much in the first place, that is part of the problem…

  • Brian

    Wonder if it comes with the TC or is that extra?? Ha!

  • Aldo

    the asian guy has the big one for a change

    • Kary Yu Min

      Easy there Aldo, you may get a complimentary whack over the face with my schlong…

      Shut your gob before your mind tells you so.

      • Big gun

        Hey Kary, are you too short? 🙂

    • robert

      for a change

  • Robert Ash

    So it’s almost $700 total (without tax) for 3 days – quite a bargain LOL 🙂

  • Michael Ericsson

    Or you could just grow a pair of balls and get closer.

  • Kynikos

    I guess it’s what the market will bear, but an $18,000 4-door sedan rents for much less.

    • fjfjjj

      Nobody drops a sedan.

      • knp

        i know a couple of people that did…

    • MyrddinWilt

      Far fewer people rent lenses than sedans so they spend a lot less time being rented out and making money.

      $500 seems like a fair price to me. Most of the people who are hiring the lens are going to be doing that for some sort of photo journalism gig. They will probably pay as much in airfare.

    • vile

      A sedan is not a lens. Tons of people own cars not many people own this lens. You can’t just do a dollar comparison. It is a specialty item for the rich or the few “wealthy” photographers. This is simply why most of us will never own this lens (me included).

  • Can’t Believe It

    Dudes, that ain’t really an ad. It’s no different than the New York Times reporting on a new product from IBM. And it’s a service for people who need that lens for their business or their art but couldn’t figure out how to pay for it. Besides, what kind of person would just go to rent it there without comparing prices from or my favorite

    • Anon

      I don’t think the NY TImes uses an affiliate link where they make money for ‘reporting’ on a new product.

  • AlphaTed

    “Note: The dedicated teleconverter is specific to each lens and cannot
    be used on other Nikon 800s. Keep teleconverters with the lenses they
    come with. Inability to do so may result in a fee.”

    Wow. I’ll make sure I won’t mix up the 1.25x TCs I have in the bag.

  • Just two months salary and I can buy one of these: why rent???

    • saywhatuwill

      Two months salary but you don’t have any other responsibilities for your money? Must be nice.

    • rich

      Well you should already have a few of them in the passengers seat of your Ferrari that is parked at your mansion then…

  • pacey999

    That lens is a monster!

  • youdontneedit

    There is a lot of debate about the price

    a. you don’t need it
    b. you need to quit photographer if you plan on getting rich from it

    c. you need to charge more $

    d. you need to realize that for those that have the budget this is not a big deal to rent

    e. hobby photographers don’t need an $18k lens

    I can think of more but seriously..this is not the same as a car or any other 18k item. Sure it is probably overpriced by Nikon but this is not a $2000 70-200 that is more realistically attainable.

    In reality if the everyday person bought an 18K lens that is borderline irresponsible. There are much better alternatives and some are not even photography related.

    If you bought this lens with credit you would probably suffer for many years financially. If you rented it for a week you could at least pay your mortgage consistently.

    If I truly felt I needed this lens and my skills justified it and I wasn’t going to post IQ samples on a photography site. I personally would be ok if I got a nice collection of images. Rent the lens, get the shots I want, perhaps 5 that I would frame and display…then that is not too bad per image.

    But I would just rather capture those images with a different lens and save the added expense.

    It is all about priorities and being realistic.

    A photographer owning this lens is like a driver owning a exotic sports car. They are not the same price but they are relatively the same sort of luxury.

    • youdontneedit

      ignore my errors…sorry 😉

  • Back to top