WitchKing wrote:
I agree with you there, but how do you tell someone entering the dSLR market that "your camera is only $800, but you will have to spend another $5000 if you you want quality pics"?. Now, I know you can say that about home theater equipment or whatever else of the like, but it's a little different. Something for your home vs. something to take pictures of. Does everyone plan on taking pics and making money from them?
I can barely justify a $700 lens...oh well.
Matt
I don't have to justify anything, if I want it and I can afford it I will buy it. I don't have to make money from my pics, I am just a serious amateur. My best pics I print 13x19 inch and I like them to be as sharp as possible.
Edited by DutchGuy on Aug 25, 2006 at 09:48 AM GMT
Edited by DutchGuy on Aug 25, 2006 at 09:49 AM GMT
If you're not rolling in it, or make big sacrifrices for your photographic hobby, L-lenses are always going to look expensive.
Still, as soon as you're pro or semi-pro the massive cost doesn't really register. One job, or even half a job, could be the difference between an enthusiast lens and an L that'll last for years turning out brilliant images.
EOS20 wrote:
But not everyone needs a expensive "L" to take a good picture. Most pepole who will buy the 400D won't need or want a "L" lens. Shure alot of pepole on this (And other) forums will buy one, and use it for serious photography, But there will be far more who will buy it and only have the kit lens and mayby a cheap consumer grade teliphoto lens and that is all they will ever need/use.
Quite often, all the 'pro' version of anything gets you is more durability and duty cycle - the quality is the same. Interfit lights don't have the build quality feel of Bowens, for example, but they get the job done.
While I agree with the cliche about it being the photographer not the equipment, L-lenses are 'pro-level' tools that really do make a difference. When I first used L-s and saw the results I had a silly grin on my face for ages - just the sharpness, contrast and 'glassy-ness' were brilliant. That's when I decided I had to start buying them.
EOS20 wrote:
And if your a working pro (Well down here anyway) you can claim equipment and depreciation on your gear back on tax!
You don't claim equipment AND depreciation, you pay for the equipment without claiming for it, and then deduct the amount of the depreciation at 15% for the first year then 30% till you've eventually deducted the entire cost
My first reaction was that the price was way out of line. I still think it is high but I've come to look at it from another perspective...
I keep my old 75-300 around for a travel lens because of the weight of the 70-200 IS. I can get $400+ for it on Ebay (nutty world out there, isn't it). If I sell the 70-200 2.8 IS for $1400 then I have one lightweight lens (the new F4 IS) doing the job of two plus an extra $600-$800 to put into a 300mm F4 L which I could really use. Since I rarely use F2.8 this is beginning to seem like a pretty good deal to me.
WitchKing wrote:
...I can't think of too many people that just have the funds to buy $1000 lenses whenever they want.
That's why they offer the 70-300 IS at $560. Or, if that is too high you can buy the 75-300 USM at $189. The point being, not everyone has to buy "L lenses." They are the top of the line lenses.
WitchKing wrote:
I agree with you there, but how do you tell someone entering the dSLR market that "your camera is only $800, but you will have to spend another $5000 if you you want quality pics"?....
Are you saying that you need L lenses to take quality pics This picture was taken with the 70-300 IS and I would guess that anyone "entering the dSLR market" would be happy with this...
Patrick Cox wrote:
Are you saying that you need L lenses to take quality pics This picture was taken with the 70-300 IS and I would guess that anyone "entering the dSLR market" would be happy with this...
I think the price is as expected. I'm surprised at the reaction here. The price is high but in line with what I'd have expected too and considering it's the latest IS too it makes it worth more! Looks to be a great lens but I'll keep my 2.8 IS for the moment I think.
Lots of people are saying that this lens is too expensive! So is that new Porche that I want! I'll never be able to afford it but I can dream. I don't moan about the price.
A couple pages back a British member said 'as soon as you're pro or semi-pro the massive cost doesn't really register' Trust me costs very much register.
From my experience when it comes to the vast majority of my professonal photographer friends, competitors and aquaintences we the most tightest fisted,cheapest, parimonious, dithering, and whining people on earth when it comes to spending dough on gear. For every example of a online jock that bought a 400mm tosses it nonchalantly into the trunk without caps and claims to have had one job pay for it there's the rest of us
pixelman wrote:
A couple pages back a British member said 'as soon as you're pro or semi-pro the massive cost doesn't really register' Trust me costs very much register.
From my experience when it comes to the vast majority of my professonal photographer friends, competitors and aquaintences we the most tightest fisted,cheapest, parimonious, dithering, and whining people on earth when it comes to spending dough on gear. For every example of a online jock that bought a 400mm tosses it nonchalantly into the trunk without caps and claims to have had one job pay for it there's the rest of us
Steve
I didn't mean there are people swanning around doing £4k weddings at the first attempt that had their gear paid-for in two minutes. I mean that as soon as you make any money from your photography those purchases that use to make you break into a sweat (because they were coming from your day-job salary) no longer look so bad. £250 covering a resturant launch for three hours, or £400 for a wedding mates-rates, or selling some shots you'd taken anyway to a local book publisher or greetings card company, or selling 5x7 prints for £10 each at an arts fair. Not big-league stuff but it oils the wheels.
That's semi-pro. I suppose you're right when it's comes to full-time freelances I know (not just photographers) because the work tends to come and go, so a healthy frugality develops. Although some probably need to market themselves a bit better.
muffins wrote:
You don't claim equipment AND depreciation, you pay for the equipment without claiming for it, and then deduct the amount of the depreciation at 15% for the first year then 30% till you've eventually deducted the entire cost
But I digress
Sorry, What I ment is you can claim back the GST from the purchase and claim back the depriciation over the years. Still If you use your gear for work you can make back some of the money you spend. You tend to keep lenses long enough to make back what you paid for it, and the depreciation on your d/SLR's.
If you do a hire purchase of the items (Like through flexi rent) Your payments are tax deductible.
Maybe we are looking at this price from the wrong end. Everyone says the 70-200 f4 non-IS lens is a bargain for an L lense. Maybe it's price is out of line and should have been more like $700 rather than $550. This would put the pricing on the IS version back into line with the 2.8 versions.
I have both 70-200/4 and 2.8L IS lenses. THe former is outstanding for traveling. My only gripe has been that unless you are using a tripod, it is difficult to get the absolute sharpest images possible with this lens unless you are using fast shutter speeds. This lens solves the issue. The MTF charts are close, the weight and size are very similar. I am very happy that Canon decided to produce this lens. Ok price is high but I suspect 6 or 7 months after release, the price will be about 995.
As long as the stuff lasts. I just don't know why people buy the black telescoping flimsey stuff when things like the 70-200 f4 are around. The irony of owning the gear I have is it's based around the 48 working weeks of the year. On my vacation I'm not so keen on the 2.8 fat heavy beast in the bag. I'd love the f4 but as I mentioned am to 'cheap' to buy a lens for three weeks a year use. I guess I need to gear swap with some amateur for my vacations. They can cart a 1 around and I can use a rebel. After all people swap houses, cars and spouses maybe we start this with glass too.
This picture was taken with the 70-300 IS and I would guess that anyone "entering the dSLR market" would be happy with this...
