How many of us are Canon Lens Snobs?

[unseen]

Once you've tried out Canon's USM or Nikon's SWM, its hard not to. I haven't tried out Sigma's HSM so I wouldn't know.

But there are some lenses by Sigma/Tamron/whatever that are worth buying over their Canon/Nikon counterparts due to the mainly the price/performance. E.g. the 24-70mm by Sigma and so on. etc.

:thumbsd: I rem quite some time back there was a test that showed Sigma's HSM to be faster than SWM. Canon's USM is only just that tiny little bit faster than HSM.

 

[unseen]

Not a snob. But third party lenses do have some compatibility problems. Focusing problem is one major one ... you just cant get quiet and accurate AF with these NON-Canon lens. I tried and I was very disappointed.

Strange that most people don't get this problem.

Do a search in the forum and you see will that some have had to send me in non-canon lenses more than twice becos of focusing errors. Recalibration of non-canon lenses can take more than 1 month, this is unacceptable for some professional users who cant afford to leave their lenses at the factory.

which lens recalibration took more than 1 month? Care to show a link?

My friend had this focusing problem, contact the 3rd party lens manufacturer who denied liabilities and asked him to check his camera body. When he ask Canon, the canon people does not want to take in non-Canon lens and mentioned that a product cannot be checked when using with non-official parts. He never did got around solving the problem and sold his lens in the end.

Can you tell who your friend is? I seem to have heard the story repeated around, but no one can pin down where the story came from. You're the 1st person to claim it's your friend, not that you heard.
I sent my Sigma lens in, they help me check focus using their 300Dbody, and then using my 350D body, spent 1hr working on it, to help me determine if there were any focusing problems.
I got it back after 1 hour (because focus was as good as it got liaoz), and they even showed me the tests.

 

[unseen]

Actually I do not quite agree about the part about dumping cash on "L" lenses.

Example: If I buy a 17 - 40L at the current market price of $1150, use it for 2 years and sell it for $900 - $950, my loss is only about $250 (I get to use a brand new good performance lens with very high resale value)

Now compare to buying a Sigma or Tamron and try selling it 1 - 2 years later, your loss is just as much and can often be even more then depreciation of the "L" lens.

My buddy bought an used "L" lens a year ago.... use it to shoot many nice pictures.... then he sold it last month (Sold in less than 6 hours) for $45 more than what he paid for then.

Another friend bought a 3rd party XXXXX lens, use it for 7 months, tried to sell it here unsuccessfully for 2 weeks.. until he lower his selling price to 65% of the new price. See the point ...?

I don't see the point.
What a totally stupid story, told in a totally stupid way.
I tell you, there's this guy selling his 75-300 in BnS a while back. Think he bought his lens for 350 or thereabouts.. He couldn't even get more than $170 or $180 for his 2 month new lens.
Barely selling at 50% of the original cost.. Does that mean canon resale value is actually v v bad?
On the other hand.. The tamron 90mm... New price is 575.. 1 year old price is about $480-$500. Wow.. Resale value of 85%! 17-40 @ 80% only! Does that mean avoid 17-40 because it's resale value is low? Please, in the end people buy 17-40 not because of resale value, they bought it because they want to use it.
Wait. Are you even a photographer, txv611? You buy lenses based on their resale value? What ever happen to buying a lens because you need it to take photos? Are you what the outspoken KRW call, a MEASUREBATOR?

Please use your brain and exhibit some intelligence in your post. Comparing totally different lenses doesn't give a true story to the actual situation. Trying to con newbies?

 

[honda]

The value of the second hand lens depends on the popularity, supply, demand, age, condition etc.
http://singaporephoto.blogspot.com

 

[Stoned]

Actually I do not quite agree about the part about dumping cash on "L" lenses.

Example: If I buy a 17 - 40L at the current market price of $1150, use it for 2 years and sell it for $900 - $950, my loss is only about $250 (I get to use a brand new good performance lens with very high resale value)

Now compare to buying a Sigma or Tamron and try selling it 1 - 2 years later, your loss is just as much and can often be even more then depreciation of the "L" lens.

My buddy bought an used "L" lens a year ago.... use it to shoot many nice pictures.... then he sold it last month (Sold in less than 6 hours) for $45 more than what he paid for then.

Another friend bought a 3rd party XXXXX lens, use it for 7 months, tried to sell it here unsuccessfully for 2 weeks.. until he lower his selling price to 65% of the new price. See the point ...?

You know what's the problem here? Your first buddy, Mr L lens, bought the lens used, and subsequently sold it for somewhere around the same price. Your second buddy, Mr 3rd party, bought the lens new, and subsequently sold it second hand at a loss. Would you expect, using your critical faculties if they exist, him to be able to sell a used lens at a new price? If you can sell a used L lens that you bought new without a loss I will personally treat you to a Grand Hyatt buffet because I will need tips from you on your excellent marketing strategy. If your friend had wanted to sell the 3rd party lens without a loss, all he had to do was to buy the 3rd party XXXXX lens 2nd hand at 65% of the new price, and sell it at 65% of the used price when he's done with it.

 

[txv611]

Excuse me. Think you are either stupid or just cant bear the fact that you are using crappy third party lens.

You claimed someone selling Tamron got a high resale value of 85% while some one with L got only 80%. But you forgotten that the person (Tamron user)who bear just just about the same percentage of loss is using a piece of crap, while the "L" user is using one of the best lens available!

Cant you see my point in my early post is telling people to buy good reputated lens (the L lens!), so that one will enjoy its use while suffers only very little depreciation?

Where's your brain? Like that also cannot understand????I bet you haven not owned an L yet.

I don't see the point.
What a totally stupid story, told in a totally stupid way.
I tell you, there's this guy selling his 75-300 in BnS a while back. Think he bought his lens for 350 or thereabouts.. He couldn't even get more than $170 or $180 for his 2 month new lens.
Barely selling at 50% of the original cost.. Does that mean canon resale value is actually v v bad?
On the other hand.. The tamron 90mm... New price is 575.. 1 year old price is about $480-$500. Wow.. Resale value of 85%! 17-40 @ 80% only! Does that mean avoid 17-40 because it's resale value is low? Please, in the end people buy 17-40 not because of resale value, they bought it because they want to use it.
Wait. Are you even a photographer, txv611? You buy lenses based on their resale value? What ever happen to buying a lens because you need it to take photos? Are you what the outspoken KRW call, a MEASUREBATOR?

Please use your brain and exhibit some intelligence in your post. Comparing totally different lenses doesn't give a true story to the actual situation. Trying to con newbies?

 

[txv611]

You must be stoned! hahaha. My point is that buying something like the "L" have the same depreciation and probably even less over the third party lens.

You really missed the point altogether. I never said buy new lens must sell higher price or without a loss. I ONLY said selling a GOOD and REPUTATED high-end lens results in minimum loss!

Summary:

1 guy bought high quality brand new "L" lens.
Another one bought brand new XXXXX lens.
Both guy tried to sell their lens.
The Canon L seller sells his in a short time with no fuss and at 80%.
The XXXX lens seller tried desperately to sell his lens, ok maybe he got 85% back but thats very very rare.
The Canon L user got many nice pictures and could make money from his nice pictures.
The XXXXX user sends in his lens for calibration checking and waited for 1 month.
Both suffers the same percentage of loss. The difference is that 1 user got to enjoy a high quality lens while the other only a mediocre one.

You know what's the problem here? Your first buddy, Mr L lens, bought the lens used, and subsequently sold it for somewhere around the same price. Your second buddy, Mr 3rd party, bought the lens new, and subsequently sold it second hand at a loss. Would you expect, using your critical faculties if they exist, him to be able to sell a used lens at a new price? If you can sell a used L lens that you bought new without a loss I will personally treat you to a Grand Hyatt buffet because I will need tips from you on your excellent marketing strategy. If your friend had wanted to sell the 3rd party lens without a loss, all he had to do was to buy the 3rd party XXXXX lens 2nd hand at 65% of the new price, and sell it at 65% of the used price when he's done with it.

 

[raptor84]

I believe unseen has used a 70-200 f/4 L before. (based on previous posts)

I think the point he was trying to make is that unless you are a collector or trying to make living from trading optics, it makes no point to scrtinise prices based on brand alone as, for reasons mentioned earlier (demand playing a big part) , will definately how well your old lens can sell. While I agree that most of the time if the lens has a reputation the new price would be high. Due to this same reputation the re-selling price would also be around the same.

The real reason why most people want to buy lenses is because they feel that that particular piece of euqipment will help them overcome difficulties encountered when taking thier particular style of photos(macro, landscape, etc.). At the end of the day its all about the pictures for most of us , not how much we are going to re-sell it for.

 

[cerebrus]

to many of us here.. our cameras are our toys anyway.... haha.. some make a living outta it.. but people like me... press press.. make myself feel good.. hahaha.. :bsmilie:

Hehehe. Well considering the fact that the lens on my camera cannot be removed....

 

[jsbn]

yup it does AF properly, just that the focussing speed is a little slow compared to original lenses.

Focusing speed slow? Train ur hands and eyes to be quicker then! ;p

No amount of super AF speed is gonna help u capture that moment if one's still slow to spot, slow to move and focus on the wrong spot (like for example - putting all focus points over on THE HAIR instead of the toned skin or the clothes in a dimly lit ballroom is a surefire way of seeing 'ur moment' gone).

 

[jsbn]

With the talk going into 'resale value', I'd like to know how many of u here are into photography for the passion or for the money to be made from the 'resale value' of ur 'original L lens'?

Do one buy Ls to help ENHANCE & COMPLEMENT one's current skills to bring ur standard to the next acme? Simply having the ego trip of owning an L with the red ring that stands out from all other lenses? Wanna 'look pro' cos it will 'enhance' ur 'market value' (even if ur technical skills are a big fat zero)? Becos ur favourite idol, friend, whatever, happen to own Ls and u wanna be like them? Or simply becos u're in the business of buy-low, sell-same/higher?

Time to wake up guys, and concentrate on skills and knowing the logic of using the right tool for the right job. I see no point ppl rushing to get a 17-40L simply becos "its highly rated" and they are macro photographers or avid birders. Or one who gets a 100mm macro when he's not even interested in the miniscular unseen world. :dunno:

 

[n0d3]

:thumbsd: I rem quite some time back there was a test that showed Sigma's HSM to be faster than SWM. Canon's USM is only just that tiny little bit faster than HSM.

Ok, my bad.

 

[Maltese]

Like what many had mentioned about the quality, resale etc...going back to your question, from the opinions of a decade old 35mm photog, have you asked yourself why did you choose Canon in the first place?

Most 35mm users, be it users of manual film or auto digital, stick to the 3 major brands namely Nikon, Canon and Minolta. While we see that Minolta had went through 2 takeovers/mergers, I'm expecting the Sony Konica Minolta team to come out with a very competitive system to battle against N & C.

Going back to why choose Canon over the rest, I dun suppose Canon system is cheaper than Nikon or Minolta right? From what I know of old manual film users, photogs stick to Nikon because they have a better range of accessories under the 35mm system. People who choose Minolta wanted a better flash system but having limited accessories makes their users limited.

In the late 90s to early 2000, Canon caught up with more lenses and better technology that works - targeting on the increasing market for photo-journalism, sports, nature and aerial photography. New photogs at that time started taking a look at Canon lenses instead of following their elder brothers, uncles or dads who are old Nikon advocates.

Most 35mm users choose Canon during the time when the L lenses flourishes and peaked when EF and IS comes in. Later when digital comes into the picture, it make sense these to migrate into this new platform because of the system they have painstakingly build over the year. To illustrate this point, most renown photographer like John Shaw, Arthur Morris, Moose Peterson etc are still advocates of the brand of their film system.


I dunno about you, but my decision to go Canon is basically because of their lenses arsenal. If I would want to opt for 3rd party lenses, I would be more happy to go for Nikon and Minolta bodies because they are much more interesting than Canon's. Film users would have remember Nikon N90, F4, F100, F5 bodies, and the undeniable Minolta Dynax 7 & 9. Canon bodies comes into the limelight with the EOS 3, 1v and the much later 30. With Nikon's VR, ED technology comes years later after Canon launched their EF, IS and L technology, Canon is undeniably a hot favourite.

Coming to the digital platform, my friends, myself and many film-turn-digital photogs, who have been decades old advocates using only Canon lenses and spending a fortune over them - also tempted on whether should we switch to other brands when digital evolves. Nikon wins back many of the young digital shooters because of their constant commitment on camera bodies that had make it more worth while Canon continues to fancy us with their lenses and upgrades them constantly. Just imagine in 12 years, some lenses such as the 20-35 f2.8L, 80-200 f2.8L had been upgraded 3 times and the 4th one coming near! None of the other brand lenses get an upgraded model every 4 years and its also because of this consistent effort, Canon lenses have been able to impress users to stick religiously to them. (Ironically, the word Canon is actually a derivation of the name of the goddess of mercy)

So at the end of the day, unless you find a very good offer to start with or have other personal reasons such as sharing lenses with your friends etc, to get a Canon system, IMHO, is only worthwhile because of their lenses and their system. This is especially true for films because film users focus almost 70% on lenses for their works while their film bodies are not as feature packed as a digital model.

So whether to justify getting Canon only lenses or not, depends a lot on how much you value their lenses and your understanding of the Canon system. Relying and debating on 3rd party techincal tests to match Canon's won't go far as we all know that if $$$ is not the concern, no one would choose a 3rd party over a canon.

 

[r32]

I use all-Canon lenses for a very simple reason (which I would have expected other people to already mention).

Canon lenses turn anti-clockwise to zoom in, clockwise to zoom out.

All the 3rd party manufacturers I know do it the other way round, anticlockwise to zoom out, clockwise to zoom in.

I've grown used to one method already.

 

[JediForce4ever]

Quite true. Bust most of the good wildlife shots i see in mags were taken with 2.8 telephoto zooms /primes Majority of them tend to use the orginal equipment although i remember seing one very nice pic with a sigma 70-200 2.8 .

Thats because wildlife photogs need the fast focussing, weather sealing that those lens has to offer.It also gives the option to add on TCs....a small aperture lenses cant give you that right?
Original equipment because for some, their company sponsors them equipments.And companies are not in favour of third party stuff.

 

[user12343]

tink one of the basic human nature. when selling off stuffs, pple hope to minimize the depreciation losses. in any resale market, seller's loss is buyer's gain and hardly the other way round.

in photography, certain items hold their resale value well while others ain't even worth half of the new-purchase price.

for some, photog might just be a short-lived interest and they might be averse to losing big time when selling off their gear. hence, that might be one of the underlying reasons why some choose, in particular, canon's flagship L glasses. of cos, their corresponding capital expenditure will be much higher for the high-resale items.

the amt of losses sustained when selling such glasses generally is lower than that of non-L counterparts.

there are many more other reasons why pple choose L glasses over non-L (and why pple choose non-L glasses over L), and shan't go into them.

just my rubbish comments

 

[JediForce4ever]

tink one of the basic human nature. when selling off stuffs, pple hope to minimize the depreciation losses. in any resale market, seller's loss is buyer's gain and hardly the other way round.

in photography, certain items hold their resale value well while others ain't even worth half of the new-purchase price.

for some, photog might just be a short-lived interest and they might be averse to losing big time when selling off their gear. hence, that might be one of the underlying reasons why some choose, in particular, canon's flagship L glasses. of cos, their corresponding capital expenditure will be much higher for the high-resale items.

the amt of losses sustained when selling such glasses generally is lower than that of non-L counterparts.

there are many more other reasons why pple choose L glasses over non-L (and why pple choose non-L glasses over L), and shan't go into them.

just my rubbish comments

I dont agree..your comments aint rubbish.

 

[unseen]

Excuse me. Think you are either stupid or just cant bear the fact that you are using crappy third party lens.

You claimed someone selling Tamron got a high resale value of 85% while some one with L got only 80%. But you forgotten that the person (Tamron user)who bear just just about the same percentage of loss is using a piece of crap, while the "L" user is using one of the best lens available!

Cant you see my point in my early post is telling people to buy good reputated lens (the L lens!), so that one will enjoy its use while suffers only very little depreciation?

Where's your brain? Like that also cannot understand????I bet you haven not owned an L yet.

Hmmm seems like you've not heard of the Tamron 90mm.. LOL I wouldn't exactly call it crap. ROFL. You really have no idea about the world out there do you? So i'd say your entire paragraph of argument is basically just plainly laughable. :bsmilie:

Anyway I never claimed any of the above. You can dig up ANY tamron 90mm thread and see for yourself. me, I'm still awaiting for you to back up your claim about 65% resale. Was it a good lens, or a crap lens that youre talking about? DI lens/EX/PRO lens or just normal lens? You must be really dumb to give such biased account and try to skip the issue when it's brought up into your face.

Got 1 case I know of though, which is a result of Sigma killing the 2nd hand market. The 70-200 used to sell for $1.2k IIRC, thus resale value of $900+. Now price shoot up to $1.5k liaoz, but no one is willing to pay more than $1k for it, based on past market value. Prices should decrease with time, but apparently Sigma lenses increase with time. Reason: After enough rave reviews putting the 70-200 close if not equal to L performance, they decide to raise prices. It's quite sad, I must admit.

Want to bet with me that I never owned a L lens? I'm accepting bets. Give me a PM on how much you want to bet with me. Minimum bet is $1800 D price of a 17-55F2.8 IS). I'll give a generous payout of $5 for every $1 you bet somemore. So, bet more! More the merrier! Anyone can join in the bet! Bring the $$ along when I bring along my proof or the lack of it. :bsmilie:

Actually I saw your point still. I'm more sure of the fact that you've never owned a L lens before. :bsmilie: It's so lame I just had to point out how silly it is. I don't doubt the quality of the more expensive Ls. You just pay for them if you need them.

 

[Russ]

13 years ago, I bought 2 Sigma lenses for my EOS100. 30% cheaper than Canon EF (consumer mid range series). Now they cannot be used with newer EOSs and cannot even be rechipped (I asked Sigma). I would have lost less money if I stuck to Canon.

I have learnt my lesson - now I only use Canon lenses - even if they are more expensive.

 

[David]

Haiyoh, cool it guys. How come a simple discussion can almost always turn out into some quarrel or flame somehow? Even a rightful reminder not to wash daughter's backside in the public toilet's sink can lead to a challenge for a fight! (Read ST Forum today).

Talk about buying lenses for photgraphy's sake. Now some people here are betting on $, who owns or doesn't own L lenses, etc. It's about pride and $ in the end isn't it? And not about taking good pics.

I think photography is more than just taking pictures. There are many other reasons. Like feel good factor, for eg. If u have the $, why not splurge on expensive glasses? It's your money, your choice and no one has any right to tell u what to do. So even if one buys a Canon L lens over 3rd parties because the former has higher resale value, so what? That's a valid reason in the person's perpective. I've heard of people buying digital cameras whenever a new model comes up. Yup, he collects cams and he's that rich. What do u want to say to him? That cameras are to take pics, not to keep?

Also, time and again we hear of the comment "good photos need not come from sophisticated camera gear". It has some truth of course but I think this argument has been used so often that it has become very stale. There's always this unreasoanble assumption here that a pro is given an inferior cam, and the super rookie is given an expensive one. But if both of them have the same photography standard, and $ is not a prob, who would want to settle for less?

I certainly wouldn't buy a 18-55 kit lens when I know I can afford (and want) an L zoom.

Got money go buy! Why buy a Toyota when a Mercedes is what u drool for and can well afford?

Hope eveyrone can cool down.. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions. If u want to buy lenses to take good pics, good for u. If u buy them bcos u dunno how else to spend $, good for u too! As long as we feel happy with what we are doing...