artd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.7 #5 · Official: 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS released! | |
retrofocus wrote:
artd wrote:
burningheart wrote:
artd wrote:
Ok for that scenario, let's rephrase to the following: If someone is considering purchasing a lens that costs $1500 they can probably afford to buy a new polarizer too. If one has the means and the willingness to spend $1500 on a lens, would $1650 really be such a back breaker?
For those who are budget minded that live within their means they may have to make the decision to buy the lens only. One thing lost by a lot of people on photoboards myself included  is we at times get tunnel vision and don't always look at the real cost. The real cost includes the cost of all the accessories they want to use with the product.
For some they have a budget that says I have $1500 max to spend, they like using polarizers but don't have an 82, thus thier cost now becomes $1650, that extra $150 maybe be earmarked to food, the mortgage, rent or some other basic necessitity for the household.
If the additional cost for a polarizer is a deal breaker then that person needs to reevaluate the want/need to buy that lens or look at other alternatives such as selling the 77mm polarizer and buying a step ring to go with the 82mm they will buy to replace the 77mm or shooting without a polarizer.
I'm not saying people don't have budgets. But, if $150 can make or break your household budget in terms of being able to pay rent or buy food, I would offer a sincerely friendly suggestion to that person that perhaps their desire for a $1500 lens could be reconsidered. There are, after all, many other budget-conscious alternatives.
I agree here with the points made by jctriguy above. Sorry, artd, but $150-200 can very well make a difference to purchase a lens with a higher price tag. If you buy used, this is already above 10% down from the original price of the lens which makes it then not really attractive buying it. The point above is not valid at all in your post.
An extra 10% associated with professional photography equipment in an upper price bracket is certainly not a deal breaker for me. I don't buy anything unless I feel I can afford it, and if I need to spend an extra 10% on an accessory because I need a particular piece of gear, well that's the cost of doing business. But naturally how you spend your money and assign value to goods is your own prerogative and I can respsect that
(But still...if someone is literally so tight on day-to-day living expenses that at extra $150 could make or break them, I think it is valid to encourage them to evaluate if they truly need to be purchasing a high priced lens.There many other practical and affordable options, and it's easy to get swept up in the consumer culture that encourages buying the best, newest, shiniest thing that hits the shelves. Of course we are getting way OT, sorry about that, I'll stop now ).
|
)) are held about things that are not necessary anyway. There is no need for purchasing a $ 1500 or 2300 lens (or a $ 3000 body) for anybody, who is crying about the price. 
