Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of Gunzorro's message #11096842 « Official: 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS released! »

  

Gunzorro
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS released!


I've already taken the 82mm plunge with the 24 TS-E II and 16-35L II. Granted, the price of quality UV and CPL filters in that size is a bit of an initial gulp. But it is a matter of perspective: how much do the lenses cost your are putting them on?

(Watch out Adrian, shooting analogy coming. . . )

I always get a laugh over competitive pistol and rifle shooters that build a custom competition gun for $2500+, then try to shoot $1 per box .22 LR ammo from Walmart, instead of top quality stuff for $15. You've got this tack driver, and then you want to shoot the most inaccurate ammo you can find?? Why bother?

I don't mean to be elitist, but the comments certainly show the difference from those photographers that have already taken the plunge (some might say "bath? ) toward top imaging gear, at a relatively high cost. Again, it's perspective. If you have a selection of L lenses, you are less inclined to buy what you consider lesser image quality, even by reputation.

In a sense, the photography world is just as competitive as top marksmanship, and there are the same pride of ownership and confidence issues.

Everyone has to make the personal decision, professional or not, at what level of involvement they feel most comfortable or committed.

I freely admit to being a gear-slut (on a budget), gradually working my way up the equipment food chain (still, after all these years!).

Jerry -- You and I are tracking almost exactly -- I bought an A-1 in 1979, so 33 years owning Canon without dropping the brand (about 5 years during that time trying Nikon too). My only gripe was during the FD-to-EF change over after I'd gotten some good gear. But in the end, I'm glad Canon took that forward-thinking step.



Nov 06, 2012 at 07:13 PM
Gunzorro
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS released!


I've already taken the 82mm plunge with the 24 TS-E II and 16-35L II. Granted, the price of quality UV and CPL filters in that size is a bit of an initial gulp. But it is a matter of perspective: how much do the lenses cost your are putting them on?

(Watch out Adrian, shooting analogy coming. . . )

I always get a laugh over competitive pistol and rifle shooters that build a custom competition gun for $2500+, then try to shoot $1 per box .22 LR ammo from Walmart, instead of top quality stuff for $15. You've got this tack driver, and then you want to shoot the most inaccurate ammo you can find?? Why bother?

I don't mean to be elitist, but the comments certainly show the difference from those photographers that have already taking the plunge (bath? ) toward top imaging gear, at a relatively high cost. Again, it's perspective. If you have a selection of L lenses, you are less inclined to buy what you consider lesser image quality, even by reputation.

In a sense, the photography world is just as competitive as top marksmanship, and there are the same pride of ownership and confidence issues.

Everyone has to make the personal decision, professional or not, at what level of involvement they feel most comfortable or committed.

I freely admit to being a gear-slut (on a budget), gradually working my way up the equipment food chain (still, after all these years!).

Jerry -- You and I are tracking almost exactly -- I bought an A-1 in 1979, so 33 years owning Canon without dropping the brand (about 5 years during that time trying Nikon too). My only gripe was during the FD-to-EF change over after I'd gotten some good gear. But in the end, I'm glad Canon took that forward-thinking step.



Nov 06, 2012 at 07:11 PM
Gunzorro
Online
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Official: 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS released!


I've already taken the 82mm plunge with the 24 TS-E II and 16-35L II. Granted, the price of quality UV and CPL filters in that size is a bit of an initial gulp. But it is a matter of perspective: how much do the lenses cost your are putting them on?

I always get a laugh over competitive pistol and rifle shooters that build a custom competition gun for $2500+, then try to shoot $1 per box .22 LR ammo from Walmart, instead of top quality stuff for $15. You've got this tack driver, and then you want to shoot the most inaccurate ammo you can find?? Why bother?

I don't mean to be elitist, but the comments certainly show the difference from those photographers that have already taking the plunge (bath? ) toward top imaging gear, at a relatively high cost. Again, it's perspective. If you have a selection of L lenses, you are less inclined to buy what you consider lesser image quality, even by reputation.

In a sense, the photography world is just as competitive as top marksmanship, and there are the same pride of ownership and confidence issues.

Everyone has to make the personal decision, professional or not, at what level of involvement they feel most comfortable or committed.

I freely admit to being a gear-slut (on a budget), gradually working my way up the equipment food chain (still, after all these years!).

Jerry -- You and I are tracking almost exactly -- I bought an A-1 in 1979, so 33 years owning Canon without dropping the brand (about 5 years during that time trying Nikon too). My only gripe was during the FD-to-EF change over after I'd gotten some good gear. But in the end, I'm glad Canon took that forward-thinking step.



Nov 06, 2012 at 07:10 PM



  Previous versions of Gunzorro's message #11096842 « Official: 24-70mm f/4L IS and 35mm f/2 IS released! »