More Nikon Lens Rebates

We have six Nikkor lenses with rebates starting December 9th:

As always with Nikon rebates, I try to give you my advice about them.

First, these are I believe the first rebates we've seen on the 24-70mm and 70-200mm E lenses. Both are superb lenses, with the mid-range zoom being arguably among the best you can get, and the telephoto zoom being simply the best 70-200mm I've ever seen from anyone. Both are bolded in the above list as I can unequivocally recommend them.

I have to wonder about the rebates on these two lenses, though. I suspect they'll be recurring from time to time now. Why? Because demand for them is down now that Nikon's road map shows 24-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms for the Z mount. As people start migrating from Nikon DSLR to Nikon mirrorless, the lens demand will shift from F to Z lenses, too. That's going to be particularly true if we find those Z versions have some benefit that using the FTZ adapter with the old lens doesn't have. 

So. If you're in the DSLR camp and going to be there for awhile, take advantage of these rebates on the Big E lenses when they appear. Those are two really good lenses that are clearly better than their predecessors, and either near or at state-of-the-art for their focal lengths.

The two DX lenses are a little tougher to recommend. I've written before that I don't like short macro lenses: to get to 1:1 you just are too close to the subject to light it. But the 40mm f/2.8G DX is a sharp lens. Thus, if you think 60mm effective is a focal length you need, the rebate is an un-ignorable 14%. Meanwhile, if you don't need VR but want a small, light telephoto, the 70-300mm is now a paltry US$150. That's a good price for a pretty decent lens. Be sure you know your DX camera can use AF-P lenses, though.

The 16-35mm f/4 is an okay lens, but it really needs more of a discount to get my attention. You've got the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 and the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 sitting US$300 above the Nikkor in price, and both are arguably a better choice, even considering the price differential. Then there's the recent Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 at significantly less than the Nikkor. I haven't tried that lens yet, but I don't think you can ignore it.

I'm also not a fan of superzooms like the 28-300mm. As superzooms go, the Nikkor isn't a bad one at all. Certainly on the 24mp bodies it looks pretty good. Is it US$275 better than the Tamron? I'm not sure, since I haven't tried the Tamron, but if I were you I'd figure that out before springing for the Nikkor. Just be very aware that 300mm isn't really 300mm. This lens has a huge amount of focal length breathing. So as you focus closer, that 300mm eventually becomes far less than 200mm and eventually less than 140mm at the closest focus distance, which sort of negates its superzoom ability. Too many people get caught up in that one number (300) and aren't aware that the 24-120mm actually comes far closer to what the 28-300mm gets at closer focus distances than you'd think. But if you take all your shots at infinity, sure, the superzoom is about 285mm by my measurements.

Looking for gear-specific information? Check out our other Web sites:
mirrorless: | general:| Z System: | film SLR:

dslrbodies: all text and original images © 2022 Thom Hogan
portions Copyright 1999-2021 Thom Hogan—All Rights Reserved