wickerprints wrote:
That comparison is flawed in the context discussed here. The cheaper one is the one with AF, 1:1 magnification, and IS. The more expensive one may be one stop faster, but it offers nothing else, not even better optical quality. Any optical performance differences between the 100MP and the 100L are much, much smaller than between the 85L and the 85/1.8.
There was an epic dogfight ZE 100 MP vs 100 L IS thread a while back that went for 27+ pages. In the end there was no consensus. Wickerprints and Bobby were participants, and I was having a bit of fun, hence the runner emoticon.
Let's get back on topic, this thread has already had more than its share of OT discussion.
By all means, back on topic, schnell schnell. The EF 85's comparison is unprecedented in the annals of photography forums, and deserves its own unmolested thread.
AR over LSU by 7!
I remember buying lots of Bubble Yum when it first came out. I believe it was in about 1975, and it cost 15 cents per pack. I would ride my one speed Schwinn several miles to the store to buy some, it was quite a revolution from the hard chunks of Bazooka, though without the comics. Anyway, back on topic. If I had only skipped buying a few packs back then, imagine how much money I would have now if I'd invested it.
If you read that first, and then the 85mm comparison, you can see where he's coming from.
That's all nice and everything, but the fundamental point still stands: the guy is talking as if HIS personal take on which photographic equipment is "worth it" is the ONLY correct choice. And as we all know, it's NOT.
Take the 5D (not 5D2) that he mentions in that article. He probably spent at least $2000 to buy it. Guess what? For a LOT of photographers out there--even professional ones--the money he paid for it is high enough that to them, it's not "worth it." And on the flip side, for a lot of extremely successful photographers, they couldn't care less about an 85L. They just want any old lens that will be tack sharp at f/8 because they shoot studio portraiture with a full complement of Profoto or Broncolor strobes, a Phase One digital back, and to them, $50,000 is nothing.
My point is that value is subjective. The problem is that this guy speaks as if his understanding of the gear is the "right" one. Maybe it's right for HIM, but as I pointed out a while back, maybe that's just because he doesn't take photos that would need such a lens, no more than I might need, say, a tilt-shift lens for my work. The difference is in the attitude. I don't go around dissing a lens or piece of gear just because I don't have a personal need for it, so long as I can appreciate that others might. I try to be fair and approach the question of value in terms of an item's actual merits and/or shortcomings in the context of a photographer's needs. But I absolutely will not hesitate to criticize a person for what I consider to be illogical, biased, and sensationalistic thinking.
Finally, nobody ever said that you had to make your living out of photography. For those 20 years of business experience and an MBA, to go into a career as a photographer and then deign to speak down to everyone about what has value and what doesn't, he talks a big game but doesn't seem to have a lot to show for it. I do photography for my personal enjoyment. My actual career is what permits me to buy the shit that the likes of him couldn't afford, and the free time to use it.
"What’s the difference? The 1.2L gives you some extra light if you’re shooting in the dark. It will also give you a dof a millimeter thin if that’s what you’re looking for. I’ve never had a need for either. At ISO 1600 or 3200 shooting at f2.0 on my 85mm f1.8 gives me everything I need, even when shooting a dark reception."
He ain't a customer for the L, doesn't need the L, therefore the L is a waste of money for everyone. I literally hate photo snobs like that. Enough close minded people on the forums for whom the fact they don't work a certain way or need a certain feature means that no one else in the world could need it or have a use for it.
