How many of us are Canon Lens Snobs?

[toiletliterature]

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...

Well said david, it just that i have to S---T---R---E---T---C---H my budget if i need to get my canon L. =)

 

[syl]

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...

David, your nick should be Solomon, the acknowledged wise man. For the above comments, i.e.

OK, my $0.02 worth...I have a different perspective, I think. I have only Canon lenses..and many of them are L lenses (7, 8 9..) ...why? Becoz almost all my lenses are 2nd hand and cost as much, I think as new 3rd party lenses. I believe that a quality lens does not deteriorate over time unless hit by fungus, etc. So basically, I believe in perceived quality (all u ppl who intend to flame me, pls note I use the word 'perceived'). I'm not a pro but an ageing hobbyist who doesn't have to think of housing instalments, etc. but at the same time, must also keep 1 eye on capital expenditure. And the less lenses that I need to replace, the more money I save in the long run. I expect these lenses to last me for at least another 7 - 10 years so I look at them long term investments! (But I hopefully expect to buy the successor to the 1 Ds/D MkII N) so I can use all my lenses with it, except my 18-55 mm EF-s kit lens that came with my 20D. Now, if I had some 3rd party lenses, can I be so confident of saying this?

Cheers to all!:angel:

 

[Silver]

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...

I agree abt what u said bro..
for me, it's tt simple..
u gt the moolah to burn, go get it.
else there are also alternatives that may satisfy yr needs 2.
it is not a must have, it is a good to have..
cheers and hope everyone has a nice day ahead!

 

[jsbn]

Well said david, it just that i have to S---T---R---E---T---C---H my budget if i need to get my canon L. =)

So, why stretch ur own pocket at the risk of turning urself into a grass eating cow/sheep/[insert herbivore animal] for the next couple of months simply becos "I want an L?"

 

[SFS]

Just because of the AF you avoid 3rd party altogether?

the importance of after-sales service la. nvr take electronics stuff for granted. u nvr know when u'll need the vendor/manufacturer's service.

 

[David]

Ha.. Yes yes, guys... Thanks, I'm glad u all agree with me. I find otherwise the debate won't end. It can even get too hot cos everyone has his/her own different opinion. No one is exactly right or wrong. In the end, ask ourselves: whose money and happiness is it?

 

[Stoned]

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.

Possible, but this is a sweeping statement. Don't laugh if you don't mean it, it's so ficititious. Real debates never have people laughing, it makes them look like fools. I have never loss anything from resale. So far, my net profit is about $450 SGD. It's like buying stocks. For all lenses. You just have to know what you're doing if you choose to buy and sell often. If you don't and you make a loss, it's your own damned fault. I may be Stoned, but at least in my state of stupor I debate in fluent English.

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!

This is again a hasty generalisation. This depends once again on your ability to monitor the market and Buy and Sell at the right time. You misread me, for I never said that you must sell your new lens at a higher price or without a loss. I merely said "Would you expect, using your critical faculties if they exist, him to be able to sell a used lens at a new price?" because you said "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 ...?". The fact is that there is no point here to miss, other than the bad grammar, because you are comparing the sale of a 1st hand and 2nd hand lens. By the way, before you say it again, it's REPUTABLE.

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.

Hasty generalisations abound everywhere here. The price that you can sell at is not fixed but is determined by consumer demand, amidst other factors, which you would know if you studied basic economics. How come i never try desperately to sell a lens? Odd. OH I KNOW, well perhaps you should consider carefully and do your homework before buying the lens in the first place! Well, gee whiz! What a great idea! Only buy a lens if you need it. Who on earth buys a lens to sell? Even someone like me whose equipment cycles around very often buys a lens to use.

Suggesting that you can only make "nice" pictures from an L lens is a cardinal sin in my book. Guaranteed to invite flaming, which you are getting now in a generous amount. What do you say to a photo challenge then, my Sigma 24-60 Vs your Canon 24-70 or 24-105 or 28-70, whatever strikes your fancy. I've currently no other 3rd party lenses, more's the pity, else you would be able to see what third party lenses can do in many other ranges. From the way you talk about the glass, you obviously spend more time fondling your phallic symbols than actually making pictures with them. What you said about Ls instantly causing you to make "money-making pictures" is not valid. Flat out. I'd like to see you do it if you think I'm wrong. Oh, and why are you sending in your 3rd party lens for calibration checking? Perhaps because you were foolhardy enough not to test the lens at the store itself? Likely scenario.

Tell me what is mediocre about a particular piece of glass and I will go out of my way to prove you wrong. Compare apples to a similar fruit please. Don't compare a 70-200/2.8L with a Sigma 55-200. Compare a 70-200/2.8 with a 70-200/2.8. L with EX, SP, etc.

 

[n0d3]

Possible, but this is a sweeping statement. Don't laugh if you don't mean it, it's so ficititious. Real debates never have people laughing, it makes them look like fools. I have never loss anything from resale. So far, my net profit is about $450 SGD. It's like buying stocks. For all lenses. You just have to know what you're doing if you choose to buy and sell often. If you don't and you make a loss, it's your own damned fault. I may be Stoned, but at least in my state of stupor I debate in fluent English.



This is again a hasty generalisation. This depends once again on your ability to monitor the market and Buy and Sell at the right time. You misread me, for I never said that you must sell your new lens at a higher price or without a loss. I merely said "Would you expect, using your critical faculties if they exist, him to be able to sell a used lens at a new price?" because you said "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 ...?". The fact is that there is no point here to miss, other than the bad grammar, because you are comparing the sale of a 1st hand and 2nd hand lens. By the way, before you say it again, it's REPUTABLE.



Hasty generalisations abound everywhere here. The price that you can sell at is not fixed but is determined by consumer demand, amidst other factors, which you would know if you studied basic economics. How come i never try desperately to sell a lens? Odd. OH I KNOW, well perhaps you should consider carefully and do your homework before buying the lens in the first place! Well, gee whiz! What a great idea! Only buy a lens if you need it. Who on earth buys a lens to sell? Even someone like me whose equipment cycles around very often buys a lens to use.

Suggesting that you can only make "nice" pictures from an L lens is a cardinal sin in my book. Guaranteed to invite flaming, which you are getting now in a generous amount. What do you say to a photo challenge then, my Sigma 24-60 Vs your Canon 24-70 or 24-105 or 28-70, whatever strikes your fancy. I've currently no other 3rd party lenses, more's the pity, else you would be able to see what third party lenses can do in many other ranges. From the way you talk about the glass, you obviously spend more time fondling your phallic symbols than actually making pictures with them. What you said about Ls instantly causing you to make "money-making pictures" is not valid. Flat out. I'd like to see you do it if you think I'm wrong. Oh, and why are you sending in your 3rd party lens for calibration checking? Perhaps because you were foolhardy enough not to test the lens at the store itself? Likely scenario.

Tell me what is mediocre about a particular piece of glass and I will go out of my way to prove you wrong. Compare apples to a similar fruit please. Don't compare a 70-200/2.8L with a Sigma 55-200. Compare a 70-200/2.8 with a 70-200/2.8. L with EX, SP, etc.

LOLOLOL. n1.

 

[unseen]

Possible, but this is a sweeping statement. Don't laugh if you don't mean it, it's so ficititious. Real debates never have people laughing, it makes them look like fools. I have never loss anything from resale. So far, my net profit is about $450 SGD. It's like buying stocks. For all lenses. You just have to know what you're doing if you choose to buy and sell often. If you don't and you make a loss, it's your own damned fault. I may be Stoned, but at least in my state of stupor I debate in fluent English.



This is again a hasty generalisation. This depends once again on your ability to monitor the market and Buy and Sell at the right time. You misread me, for I never said that you must sell your new lens at a higher price or without a loss. I merely said "Would you expect, using your critical faculties if they exist, him to be able to sell a used lens at a new price?" because you said "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 ...?". The fact is that there is no point here to miss, other than the bad grammar, because you are comparing the sale of a 1st hand and 2nd hand lens. By the way, before you say it again, it's REPUTABLE.



Hasty generalisations abound everywhere here. The price that you can sell at is not fixed but is determined by consumer demand, amidst other factors, which you would know if you studied basic economics. How come i never try desperately to sell a lens? Odd. OH I KNOW, well perhaps you should consider carefully and do your homework before buying the lens in the first place! Well, gee whiz! What a great idea! Only buy a lens if you need it. Who on earth buys a lens to sell? Even someone like me whose equipment cycles around very often buys a lens to use.

Suggesting that you can only make "nice" pictures from an L lens is a cardinal sin in my book. Guaranteed to invite flaming, which you are getting now in a generous amount. What do you say to a photo challenge then, my Sigma 24-60 Vs your Canon 24-70 or 24-105 or 28-70, whatever strikes your fancy. I've currently no other 3rd party lenses, more's the pity, else you would be able to see what third party lenses can do in many other ranges. From the way you talk about the glass, you obviously spend more time fondling your phallic symbols than actually making pictures with them. What you said about Ls instantly causing you to make "money-making pictures" is not valid. Flat out. I'd like to see you do it if you think I'm wrong. Oh, and why are you sending in your 3rd party lens for calibration checking? Perhaps because you were foolhardy enough not to test the lens at the store itself? Likely scenario.

Tell me what is mediocre about a particular piece of glass and I will go out of my way to prove you wrong. Compare apples to a similar fruit please. Don't compare a 70-200/2.8L with a Sigma 55-200. Compare a 70-200/2.8 with a 70-200/2.8. L with EX, SP, etc.

:thumbsup:
Still waiting for him to bet.. I haf a desire to have the 17-55 IS...

 

[Stoned]

Sorry, it's actually quite bitchy on a second look. I just cannot stand it when people post threads like this, it brings out the monster in me. I stand by what I said though, perhaps on nicer terms.