Dawei Ye wrote:
I could spend every day drinking nothing but water and eating only the very basic foods I require to continue living. I could probably save $200,000 over my lifetime. But I choose not to. I am happy to spend my money on better tasting food because it brings me more utility, happiness and well being, even if the it's discretionary, non financial wastage.
The same goes for the 85 f/1.2LII. I have photos that could not have been taken by a 85 f/1.8 lens without a substantial increase in noise or DOF or other qualitative aspect. To me, that is worth the additional cost....Show more →
+1, two copies of this lens already and no regrets. Paid for first one $300 less but oh well, dollar is different too.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I could spend every day drinking nothing but water and eating only the very basic foods I require to continue living. I could probably save $200,000 over my lifetime. But I choose not to. I am happy to spend my money on better tasting food because it brings me more utility, happiness and well being, even if the it's discretionary, non financial wastage.
The same goes for the 85 f/1.2LII. I have photos that could not have been taken by a 85 f/1.8 lens without a substantial increase in noise or DOF or other qualitative aspect. To me, that is worth the additional cost....Show more →
+1, great life style attitude!!! I am aloso against of saving single penny all my life and at the end go for free lunch and bus to Atlantic City where I could spend all $ I saved ...
It is mostly nonsense. If you can't afford or justify the cost, then don't buy that lens/camera/car, etc. If your primary interest in money, then there are ways to make it and grow it, but there is no guarantee by a long shot that you will beat inflation by the amounts mentioned.
Life is not all about money. Sometimes a fine lens is more important.
You're not getting 8% anywhere investing that little. Or I should say, if you do the risk of losing your beginning $1750 is far greater than the chance to return 8% a year regularly.
Well, I think that the blog is as idiotic as the rest of you, but I am uncomfortable reading
"The one thing I would say to him is this: you're not even a fraction as talented or knowledgeable as you think you are. That's why you're pulling this stunt, because you can't hack it as a real artist"
Seems perilously close to mere abuse quite honestly, coming from a poster who we all know is routinely capable of finely judged technical analysis. The best answer to someone unfairly criticising a lens is to post some links to good work taken with it (and we all know that in the case of the 85L that isn't going to be difficult). Saying that someone doesn't exist as an artist is the internet equivalent of going for them with a broken bottle.
wickerprints wrote:
That's what trolls do. Like I said, he's taken a page from the KR book of self-promotion. Foment controversy through sensationalism, make profit off of blog hits. Attention is attention.
The one thing I would say to him is this: you're not even a fraction as talented or knowledgeable as you think you are. That's why you're pulling this stunt, because you can't hack it as a real artist, so you have to create drama. Just like KR.
Artists come in many shapes and sizes. Judging from this discussion here, this "artist" is very good at what he does.
We are probably helping him achieve his 8% return on his investment.
I have a 1967 Miranda 35/2.8 that has so far cost me about a thousand dollars.
I paid $60 dollars then, and have barely used it after moving to Canon in 1976. If I had instead bought a cheap off-brand lens and invested the difference in, oh I don't know, something that everyone "knew" in 1967 was going to return at least 8% annually for the next 45 years and had a minimum investment of maybe $30...
So far, my 85 L II has shown a profit of about $600 based on current prices compared to what I paid, but as I don't intend to sell it, that would also be a bogus claim. And I suppose the fact that I shoot with it, sell some of the results, and enjoy some that I don't sell would not be pertinent. I even have an 85/1.8, just to complicate things.
I paid $1,500 when I bought my 85L II new with the Canon rebate program ... so I am ahead of the game but, of course, I have to sell it before the market conditions and exchange rate turns around and forces prices of Canon lenses to go south!
Several here have indicated they can get shots they could not possibly get with the 1.8, no one can post a single example to back that up though it seems.
Not to say there is no difference but no great difference.
I think that the 85 1.2 is a niche lens. Not saying it's unimportant, but I don't think that the price premium is really worth it. The 85 1.8 is a fine lens. I used to own one, and have considered it again. I just refuse to spend over 300 used on it, when I know what i spent on it just last year.
The images the blog poster posted, are just fine. Nothing out of this world, but he's quite capable it seems. There's a lot of pro phtographers who use lenses without red rings around them, and they don't have this pretentious "anything at 1.2 /thread" attitude.
I think that the 1.8 can get many shots that the 1.2 can. The problem with 1.8 shots is best illustrated by the last picture posted on the blog linked by the OP. Nervous terrible bokeh.
I want to know where he thinks he's going to average an 8% return over 30 years. 30-year Treasuries today carry a coupon of 3.125% and last I saw were priced to yield 2.99%. Anyone who can average that kind of return over that long a period of time is either an investment genius or a crook.
wickerprints wrote:
The one thing I would say to him is this: you're not even a fraction as talented or knowledgeable as you think you are. That's why you're pulling this stunt, because you can't hack it as a real artist, so you have to create drama.
The man also seems to be quite generous with his knowledge of photography as he shares what he has learned over the course of his career. Many excellent tutorials are on his blog: http://laurencekim.com/category/tutorials/
Laurence Kim appears to be no slouch. His workshops garner $375 per person and are popular. He does one on one coaching for $100 an hour. His wedding coverage begins at $3700 a pop.
He is not a Canon L lens hater. He worships his 70-200 f2.8L IS and deems it the "King of lenses".
I'm just saying that his opinion is his opinion and I don't think he deserves to be demonized for expressing it.
I'm sure the blogger who can't justify the 85L drives a Mercedes and wears a Rolex and has no money left to get the 85L because he lost his shirt on his investments...poor baby. Kinda silly, if we all sat aroung "justfying" our purchases, capitalism would be totally dead. BTW, I have zero complaints about the images I produce with my 85L.
The way things look at the moment if you invest the value of an 85LII and cash in the investment a year later you might just afford an 85 1.8 with the proceeds.
.