More exclusive Amazon deals: Nikon D500 lens kit now $350 off


I am not sure how Amazon is getting away with this, but they are again running an exclusive special on several Nikon cameras and lenses:

These unusual Nikon deals at Amazon usually last a day or two.

FYI: the Nikon Coolpix B700 camera does have RAW/NEF support.

New Nikon rebates will be introduced in Germany on October 15th and will include the Nikon D5, D500 (€175 off), 24mm f/1.4 (€150 off), 58mm f/1.4 and others. Check the details on Amazon.de. The rebates will be valid until January 2018.

This entry was posted in Deals, Nikon D500 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Proto

    after D850 release, D500 sale seems to have tapered off….. or maybe its a clearance sale of that lens

    • Allen_Wentz

      It is a great lens on the D500.

      • Proto

        Sorry to hear of your loss. Perhaps, on the positive side, it offers you the opportunity to use insurance money to upgrade and enjoy new and modern lens. Just get FEW choice FX lens. Less is more! : )

        • Allen_Wentz

          No insurance money.

          Agreed a few lenses, less is more. The question is which lenses? E.g. 12-24, 16-80 DX lenses stolen but I still have the 10.5mm DX fish. IF I get a D850 can I afford a 24-70 f/2.8? Probably not. And 20mm prime is my go-to WA lens anyway.

          I already know from the D500 and the D2x before that that DX can make good images. So maybe I take the Amazon deal, save some money and again get the D500 with 16-80mm, a proven synergistic combo.

          Like I said, an interesting matrix. Fortunately I still have 10.5, 20, 24-85, 105, 300 and a couple of kit lenses plus D3 and D5100. But the D500 showed me what a modern body can do and I will replace it soon.

      • Alexander Gray

        Are you in the US? I’m looking to sell my D500, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 f4vr, and sigma 18-35 f1.8 for 3800.

        • Allen_Wentz

          I am in the SF Bay Area, CA, USA. The D500 does interest me, as does the 70-200 f/4VR.

          The trouble is I _really_ like the D500/16-80mm combo for DX but do not again want to pay $1k+ for the lens by itself.

          • Alexander Gray

            Makes sense. It’s a great combo.

      • Something serious need to be done from manufacturers about cameras and lenses theft. This has been going on too much for too long.

        • ?????? what can be done by manufacturers about theft of anything

          • tomskyphoto

            How about a PIN or password lock (fingerprint sensor) that will eventually permanently disable the gear for the thieves or their accomplices and customers when trying to enter a wrong code repeatedly?

            It’s not that all this would be rocket science, almost all of us already have comparable tech in their current phones. Once the news spread that stolen gear without code access is a mere paperweight theft will most likely go down.

            • And it isn’t beyond the realms of common sense to know that we have too many pin numbers to remember now, including my bank accounts, bank cards, shop loyalty cards, car radio, and countless other things like hell I need to have pin numbers for my lenses, cameras, flash guns, video cameras, are you living in reality

            • ZoetMB

              I agree. This also proved successful with car radios. Car radio theft used to be a plague which was compounded by the fact that the thief would break your car window to get to the radio. But manufacturers started producing code-based radios in which the code has to be re-entered if the radio loses power.

              This probably couldn’t be done with lenses, but it could be done with cameras. Except that you wouldn’t want to re-enter the code each time you changed the battery, so there’d have to be some memory.

              But I also think people should carry a rider on their home insurance policy. I have a policy for $10,000 based upon replacement value (that’s the most they would give) that costs me an extra $165 a year. There are also special policies for pros.

            • tomskyphoto

              I would have no problems with reactivating the camera after a battery change. That would actually be the logical point for me like with the car radios.

              But the manufacturers could or should add an option for deferring the next code reactivation to the n-th battery change for photographers who are shooting lets say a wedding or a major sports event and know that they won’t let go of their equipment anyways but will also go through multiple batteries.

              Accessories like lenses, strobes or battery grips – i.e. everything that uses some kind of serial data communication with the camera anyways – could come with a master code. Before using the accessory it would have to be “paired” with its master camera(s) by code entry through the camera. We are already updating lens firmware through our cameras, so no rocket science again.

              Information about the pairing would be stored in the camera’s memory and no in-field activation of the accessory with the master code would ever be required. But if a camera and an accessory don’t recognize each other because they haven’t been properly paired the whole system goes into total brick mode – nothing works. Major nightmare for most thieves except those who know a very tech savvy hacker. Oh yeah, pairing batteries with the camera would be really, really mean… bwahaha!

              There’s a lot of technological possibilities today that could make the whole process a breeze for the legitimate owner and/or user and a total nightmare for the illegitimate appropriator.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Pro policies have always been so expensive I have “self insured.”

  • Photobug

    I had expected these prices from Black Friday to Christmas but not know. Nice price. Same comment as Peter, how does Amazon get away with these prices?

    • Thom Hogan

      That’s a really good question. I’m pretty sure the brick and mortar dealers are asking NikonUSA that question as we speak. If Nikon isn’t going to enforce MAP, they’re going to lose control of two things: (1) pricing (and thus their vaunted margin); and (2) dealer base, as some will simply stop ordering from Nikon without pricing protection.

      • BVS

        I wonder if Amazon can claim it was a ‘mistake’ or ‘input error’ or something, and maybe there’s a clause in the contract somewhere that says as long as mistakes are rectified within 24 hours or whatever there’s no liability?

        • They have been doing this for a long time now. I cannot believe it’s an error.

    • Jason Joyce

      These price changes happen in two ways at Amazon. Inventory balance or one of their spiders found the same price at another website.

      Their inventory computer pricing algorithms make these price changes, doubt a human was even involved. I see this on computer parts all the time at Amazon. The deals last until the inventory is balanced or the other website changes the price.

      With the volume Amazon moves for Nikon, what can Nikon even say? Amazon will likely say, well site XXX was also selling below MAP.

      • thanks for the explanation

  • tomskyphoto

    That reflects the price without tax I paid in Europe a short while ago for that kit from a reputable German retailer – no grey import. At this price point it’s a great offer as the 16-80 is definitely above the average kit lens.

    But still wondering why the 850 price over here is a complete exception in this regard, at least for the moment being.

  • Prabhakar Kasi

    Tax to be collected is $193.41 so it totals to $2,342.39
    (Shipping to San Jose, California), so the deal is $156 off. I will probably wait for B&H deal

    • Thom Hogan

      In California you’re subject to Use Tax. If you order from B&H and don’t pay the Use Tax to the state yourself, you’d better hope you’re never audited, because one of the first questions they’ll ask is “have you ever ordered anything from out of state on the Internet?”

      • The way I understand it, you can claim that you don’t have the receipt(s) and file Use Tax according to the gross income tables when you file your annual tax return. Someone making $100K will pay $44 which is what you’d pay if you made $733.33 in sales tax at the California rate of 6%.

        • Eric Calabros

          How you guys manage to understand this system?

          • Thom Hogan

            For the most part, we don’t ;~).

            Even the databases that are available that address the thousands of sales tax entities in the US can’t agree on some of the lines ;~).

            • ZoetMB

              Not only that, but all the databases that I’ve ever used for e-commerce sites are zip code based, but apparently, some zip codes have different rates within them, so at least on the New York State tax site, they warn you that you shouldn’t use zip codes (but I think everyone does anyway).

          • Eric, there are MANY “systems” here in the US that defy understanding.

        • Thom Hogan

          Yes, I believe several states have assumption clauses you can take advantage of.

          States are in a tough situation. The law is clear, and tax is tax. If they were to enforce the laws by audit they get political heat from the constituents. The alternative tables are one way of dealing with that.

          But the real solution is single collection, which is the solution that the Supreme Court suggested back in 1992. I’d be perfectly fine with a single collection system with rules made by people I vote for. What I’m not fine with is a multi-collection system with rules (and penalties) imposed by jurisdictions I have no vote in (which is why Quill was decided the way it was).

      • Bill M

        I remember a time when it was illegal for states to tax out of state purchases, now the states have figured out how to get taxes regardless (citizens aren’t the only ones who find loopholes). Requiring the consumer to manage and track their internet purchases puts an unfair burden on the consumer, I would be curious if the state tax department has ever prosecuted someone for internet purchases. Maybe if you’re a business or if you do 100’s of thousands of purchases online, but the average Joe? In fact, if the states were truly serious about collecting internet goods sales tax, why don’t they have a worksheet and section on the state tax forms. It’s the seller who remits the tax, and it’s the seller who’s the legal taxpayer. The seller, not the buyer, is subject to audits and can be held responsible for underpayment by the states in which they do business. I find the legality of taxation without representation suspect and until they come up with a better system I don’t think the consumer has to worry.

        • Thom Hogan

          It has never been “illegal” for states to tax out of state purchases that were brought into the state. That all started with automobiles, IIRC.

          Here in PA, if you have a business that collects sales tax, you’re obligated to pay Use Tax at the same time as forwarding sales taxes collected (either monthly or quarterly, depending upon your schedule). If you don’t declare any Use Tax, your audit chances go way up.

          Utah at one point sent a letter to all known professional photographers in the state that basically said “we know you buy from places like B&H and if we don’t see Use Tax payments on your annual tax forms, we’ll audit you.” You can imagine the stir that caused.

          What strikes me is that when Quill vs. North Dakota was decided by the Supreme Court the justices put the solution in their ruling. Yet Congress has never acted on it, even though there have been repeated bills that have been written but never gotten out of committee.

          In the case of my state, it decided to ignore the Supreme Court ruling (!?!?), which impacted me (and others) directly and cost the state quite a bit in actual tax receipts. But their real goal was to leverage Amazon, and Amazon finally gave in, though apparently the state is still ignoring the Supreme Court ruling.

          • ZoetMB

            Amazon “giving in” has become somewhat moot as they’ve established operations in almost every state anyway, which causes “nexus” and the requirement to collect sales taxes. I think Amazon started giving in precisely because they realized it wouldn’t be long before they’d be in almost every state anyway.

            Back in the late 90’s, I was involved with a big e-commerce operation. We were located in New York. We were going to use third party distributors in some cases who were going to drop ship. One of those distributors also had an operation in California which we weren’t using at all, but because they had that operation, they wanted us to charge sales tax in California. I argued that we were the seller and we didn’t own them and therefore we didn’t have to charge the tax. For reasons I can’t go into here, it became moot.

  • Matt

    Is $2150 for the D500 kit the price we should expect for Black Friday? I have been waiting and saving to get that kit once the holiday sales start.

  • Eric Calabros

    In the whole mirrorless world there is nothing like that 70-300 lens and with that price, and yet Nikon fails to make people know this fact.

  • Nua

    Unfortunately the sale is no longer available!

    • yes, Amazon does this all the time – their sales usually last a day or two

    • actually only the D500 deal is gone, the lenses are still on sale

  • Color Crush

    The 70-300 looks interesting but 4.5-6.3 is a bit slow, especially on my D500 it will be even slower.

    • Max

      Is that an FX lens? Even so.. why slower on D500?

      • Color Crush

        The crop factor also affects light transmission and DOF by 1/2 of the stated F stop. So a DX F1.8 will operate like a 2.8 FX lens, and so on.

        • Max

          Yes but the sensor is also smaller, so the exposure is the same

          • Color Crush

            I’ve noticed that as well, DX tends to expose brighter, but it’s good to know when realizing you don’t have as much bokeh as the FX bodies.

            • Max

              Yes the shallower dof on fx is always nice when you need it

    • BVS

      The 70-300 is surprisingly good for the price, and the 50 1.8 is quite good on DX too.

      If you find yourself wanting an all-in-one lens in the future check out the 18-140 f/3.5-5.6. A refurb one can be had for $300 or less.

      On the prime side, a refurb 85 1.8 is relatively inexpensive at around $400. If you want wider, many people also swear by the 35 1.8DX which is about the same price as the 50 1.8.

      • dabug91

        You can pick up the 18-140’s all day long actually for even $200 or less, 18-200’s for $300 or less.

  • Jason Joyce

    Dang, just saw this 10/10 @13:12 Eastern and the D500 16-80 deal is already gone. Back to $2496.95

    • dabug91

      Don’t worry, it’s really not that much better of a deal than they had for the holidays last year because they didn’t include the battery grip for this deal. In about 2 months you will probably once again be able to pick up a D500, 16-80, and battery grip for $2,400.

  • dabug91

    I couldn’t resist picking up the AF-P 70-300mm VR. During the holidays last year, Nikon sold this lens for $250, but ONLY if you were also buying a body with it as well, so to see it for $280 is a pretty good price, but it is unfortunate that the $30 lens hood doesn’t come with it. And that it has a plastic mount rather than metal like the 55-300 it essentially replaces. But it is pretty sharp throughout the frame and focuses significantly faster and quieter so you can’t complain too much.
    I typically use my D750 and D500, but I like having my D3300, AF-P 10-20mm VR, AF-P 18-55mm VR, and now this AF-P 70-300mm VR as a lightweight kit for non-professional work.

  • dabug91

    You’re completely clueless. It’s Nikon’s stuff that makes Canon look way overpriced, not the other way around.

  • Chris Mahoney

    The first example the lens is used.

    • There were not used when I posted the deal. Once Amazon sells out a product, they link to the used offerings. Again, this was a valid deal that lasted 2 days. There was nothing wrong or questionable with the listing.

    • Erin Anderson

      Sandy Hoax was a fake event.

  • Chris Mahoney

    The 70-300 is not available@ the 297 price, they are just playing games.

    • It was available, as I mentioned already the deal is now gone

      • Chris Mahoney

        I realize that, I guess what I’m trying to say is these “deals” are usually one offs of used merchandise, they are not really legitimate deals, on new or factory warrantied products.

        • Chris Mahoney

          Not trying to criticize you .

          • No problem.

          • Erin Anderson

            Sandy Hoax

        • I seriously doubt Amazon will sell used products as new.

        • Jason Joyce

          Those are never used when they ship from Amazon. This was inventory adjusting by their computer algorithms. I see that same thing on computer parts all the time. There is limited stock on the deal, but not one.

  • Chris Mahoney

    The 18-300 is also used.

  • Back to top