Expired Hot Deals

[Visions Electronics] NIKON 16-35 f/4G ED $1441.50 with 15% price match guarantee

  • Last Updated:
  • Aug 30th, 2020 1:57 pm
[OP]
Member
Apr 8, 2011
261 posts
415 upvotes
Calgary

[Visions Electronics] NIKON 16-35 f/4G ED $1441.50 with 15% price match guarantee

$1499 at Visions, $1449 on Amazon.

If Visions price matches PLUS the 15% off difference, that makes it $1441.50

Not as great a deal as I initially thought, but still a deal I guess.
Last edited by badbeerbreath on Aug 30th, 2020 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
5 replies
Member
User avatar
Mar 23, 2017
406 posts
276 upvotes
Canada
F2.8 vs f4 doesn't matter as much as 14 vs 16mm when using for landscapes . Yes 2 mm is a lot at lower end. I would go with 14-24mm if budget allows
Deal Addict
Jul 10, 2001
1217 posts
499 upvotes
badbeerbreath wrote: $2199 at Visions, but Amazon has it priced at $2049. So if Visions price matches PLUS the 15% off for guaranteeing price, that makes it $1869!

The 16-35 f4 is similar... $1499 at Visions, $1449 on Amazon. Visions should then price match PLUS 15% off makes it $1293!
Friendly correction on the math. Vision's price beat is 15% of the difference. So, for example, the first Nikon lens would be $15 off Amazon's pricing, $2034.
Deal Expert
Jan 27, 2006
15423 posts
8320 upvotes
Vancouver, BC
I would doubt that Visions would match the Amazon price on the 14-24mm as it's sold and shipped by Centre Drone, a known grey market reseller.

As for the differences between the two lenses, there's been a lot written about that all over the internet but having used both lenses, the 14-24mm is an excellent lens but has three large failings:

1. Heavy so as long as you are willing to carry the extra weight it's fine but remember that it's not going to do you any good if you consider it too heavy to hike with and you leave it in the hotel room.
2. The front element is difficult to keep clean and protected as it projects so far out.
3. The lack of VR. Yes with it so wide, do you really need VR as many people ask? I would say yes because it comes in handy for indoor shots where you may not be able to get or want enough flash coverage for the scene.

Personally, I would give the nod to the 16-35mm for most people.

And as for price, I would actually go used on both lenses. A few years back, I was able to pick up a used 16-35mm for $750 in great condition.
Jr. Member
Jul 29, 2016
163 posts
114 upvotes
16-35 is lighter and has VR. I'm not sure how practical it is. But it has more practical focals from ultra wide to normal where 14-24 has from ultra wide to wide.
If you need specialized lens then 14-24 is no brainer if you want more versatile lens and you shoot statc objects then i think 16-35 is better.
[OP]
Member
Apr 8, 2011
261 posts
415 upvotes
Calgary
Prof wrote: Friendly correction on the math. Vision's price beat is 15% of the difference. So, for example, the first Nikon lens would be $15 off Amazon's pricing, $2034.
Ahh..not quite as good a deal then. Thanks for that clarification. I did almost think this was too good to be true, alas it is. Wouldn't that be a difference of $150 then, and 15% of $150 is $22.50. $2049 - 22.50 = $2026.50 ? Moot point anyway, as has been pointed out the seller is grey market. :( Looks like the 16-35 is shipped from Nikon though. I'll go ahead and edit title then.

Top