Why i don't visit the lens section these days

[Sean-Mcr]

Basically it's because i'm no longer interested in talking about lenses. I've had some seriously benign pointless debates about lenses and i've learnt about zero from it, and most likely taught about the same

I've actually enjoyed this forum much more since i stopped posting or reading the threads about lenses. I just want to focus on the actual art of it. If in one of the other sections a lens come up i'll talk about. But i'm not going to seek out a debate on lenses as i'd rather talk about the creative side of things.

This isn't in anyway a dig at anybody that enjoys talking about lenses, it's simply me thinking out loud.

[In2Photos]

Sean I have been in the lens section less and less these days as well. I still pop in to give some advice here or there but there is just too much diversity to side one way or the other. So many different lenses for so many shooting syles. The other forums move slower though.:(

[Croasdail]

I never go over there... it is way too expensive. I don't want to know what lens is better then what I have. My life goal is to be "fat, dumb and happy".... I am well on my way.

[DavidW]

You aren't alone - I increasingly found the lens forum unhelpful and a waste of energy once I had a good appreciation of the issues. The same applies to the EOS cameras forum.

The truth is that there's a variety of equipment at a variety of price points. All equipment has strengths and weaknesses, which mean that it suits different types of photography, different photographers and different budgets. Further, there's no such thing as a perfect lens nor a perfect camera. I'm happy with the lenses I have and understand how I wish to expand my lens collection bearing in mind the uses that I put it to.


If you're not careful, you get tied up in a lot of arguments that generate a lot of heat and not much light! Further, it's not about what you can put in your gear list, but about the results you generate on your screen and in your prints. For that reason, I have never posted a gear list on POTN, though if you search my posts, you'll find details of just about everything.



David

[GyRob]

i like to pop in everywere :) iv learnd something from all forum's the lens part is great for help in deciding on a lens or a tec isue about one but i would not argue over this or that after all it your / my money to spend how we want in the end.
Rob.

[JCR]

From a noobs perspective. The lens forum has given me a toe hold into understanding some fundimental basics.
I now don't expect my 28-105 USM to work inside a church too well without some kind of light help, neither do I expect my 24-105 IS to capture a perfectly sharp hand held image of a roundhouse in action.
Then again my arguing about a lens would be pointless anyway, would be like a fish disagreeing with a bird on the fundimentals of flying. :)

[saravrose]

I go over there when I have a specific question... or if i'm wondering about a new purchase... aside from that I try to not pay too much attention to it.. Mostly because I can't afford it.....

sari

[JayHawk]

Basically it's because i'm no longer interested in talking about lenses..... I just want to focus on the actual art of it.....i'd rather talk about the creative side of things.




Amen....the gear/tech discussions are great when considering new purchases, but at some point you have to ask yourself "have I completely maximized the use and potential of the gear I already have."

I'll admit there are always accessories and gadgets I'm thinking about adding or upgrading, but as far as lenses and camera bodies I think I have a decent set of tools, just need to work on my image making ability.

[Skippy29]

That lens forum cracks me up. SO many people that post there are just lens collectors that worry way too much about if they have the world's sharpest lens or not.
How many times have you seen this over there..."I just got my 300 2.8 in the mail and I set up a focusing test straight away and I think it's off, HELP!!!!!"

I always wanna say "have you even used it yet , or did you buy it just to set up a sharpness test?" :lol:

[condyk]

Gosh ... a thread where people agree 100% :lol: :lol: and so that means we aren't in the gearhead section! I also agree AND I have a probably silly desire to help new people not get caught up in gear and the whole L thing, but focus on the basics of decent gear that they need, exposure and composition. Many start in thoise sections when they are looking, or just bought, gear. I think they deserve rescuing so they can focus on shooting :p

[DocFrankenstein]

Gosh ... a thread where people agree 100% :lol: :lol: and so that means we aren't in the gearhead section! I also agree AND I have a probably silly desire to help new people not get caught up in gear and the whole L thing, but focus on the basics of decent gear that they need, exposure and composition. Many start in thoise sections when they are looking, or just bought, gear. I think they deserve rescuing so they can focus on shooting :p
That's a noble goal condy. :lol: I've deviated from the lens forums also.

The only thing I want to experiement now is a superwide around 20-24mm, but since I don't own a lens like that I don't have the option.

I want an artsy forum for critiques of photographs, but I can't find any useful ones. The people who can't critique aren't able to advise anything useful and the ones who can't don't do it because it'll hurt their business.

This results in critiques like:
don't use direct flash
nice shot
if you photoshop the room clutter out, it would be ok

[condyk]

This results in critiques like:
don't use direct flash
nice shot
if you photoshop the room clutter out, it would be ok

Nice points Doc. You might want to check for typos. :p What lens did you use?

[PacAce]

Oops. I think I've stepped into the wrong forum. Can someone help me find the Lens forum, please. :confused:

:mrgreen: :lol: ;)

[In2Photos]

Oops. I think I've stepped into the wrong forum. Can someone help me find the Lens forum, please. :confused:

:mrgreen: :lol: ;)

Sure! it is thatttaway ^.:p

[Sean-Mcr]

I own 4 lenses, and if there's anything about me at all. Then i should be able to spend a life time being creative with what i have. If i lack any creativity then it's never going to be down to my lenses. I actually think i could spend the rest of my life with just my 35 and do something new everyday. Not saying i will and if i don't that will be down to me not the lens

[lakiluno]

I have to admit I still spend some time over there...but I'm sure when I actually have lenses to be content with, I'll be there less :D

I really need to get into that middle section full of photographs (what is this word...I thought lenses were to look pretty on the mantlepiece?) more often...

[Sean-Mcr]

Well sometimes it seem that people are never content with what they have. Series of overlapping lenses, got to cover those bases but often generally end up taking pretty similar shots but use six lenses to do it.

[lakiluno]

I agree with that - (yes, this is a lot of specualation - I'm talking about replacing lenses I don't have yet :D) - the only lens I would replace in my wishlist is the 18-55, with the Sigma 17-70, and I'm only getting the 18-55 because its cheap. Yes, I would think we all lust over getting another lens, especially L's etc, but the amount of money some people spend - I saw someone in the lens (or perhaps the EOS section) saying they'd just bought all this gear (and it was a lot, including a 30D, a bundle of L's and a 50mm) and they'd already made a second B&H purchase of a flash, a 50 1.4 to replace the 50 1.8 they'd only had for the last few weeks and a grip (for the 5D - they had to cancel the order and re-order the 30D grip :D)

Overall, they spent over $5000. For me, that is just way too much to spend when starting out - Perhaps a pro should spend that much, or someone who's been taking photo's for a long time, but if you have barely taken any photos, spending $5k is just stupid, especially when part of that money goes to 2 50mm's!

Anyway...everyone should spend 9 months drooling over their equipment before buying (like I've done :D) - that way we will all appreciate it more ;)

Leo

[neil_r]

Lens section, are you tellin me that there is a lens section on this forum.............?

[saravrose]

Gosh ... a thread where people agree 100% :lol: :lol: and so that means we aren't in the gearhead section! I also agree AND I have a probably silly desire to help new people not get caught up in gear and the whole L thing, but focus on the basics of decent gear that they need, exposure and composition. Many start in thoise sections when they are looking, or just bought, gear. I think they deserve rescuing so they can focus on shooting :p

amen... I am doing my best not to feel unworthy and insecure about what I am shooting with.. But, here's something i've realized. the only folks that know that your not shooting with a thousand dollar lens is photog's.. Nobody else cares how much it costs.. You say $300 bucks and to you, that's cheap.. But to somebody without a DSLR you're nuts and how can it possibly be that expensive... and there are too many folks with incredile equipment who aren't shooting, makes me a little sad......atleast I can say that good, bad or ugly I make use of what I have......

sari.

[RacingMoose]

I've learned a lot in the lens forum when I was looking at purchasing a lens, but lately I find myself in there less and less also. Posters such as fstopjojo and condyk are and have been very helpful when I've been in that forum. However, there are too many others who insist on L's only, insult those who don't use just L's, or provide comments such as "do a search". Those types of comments aren't very helpful for a newbie or someone who is rising out of the newbie status.

[KennyG]

Too many people who are collectors and not photographers. It's more about bragging rights than useful information. Those with the biggest and most expensive lens collections never post images to show how they put them to use. I am convinced they line them up on a shelf and stare at them all day, or stick them on e-bay as unused.

[Carzee]

I'll chime in with the general tone of this thread. Especially Dr Frankensturn and his search for critique that doesn't make him reach for the prozac.

Being a diginoob I'm getting an education here about gear (in well informed depth for the most part!) and something of the art aspects and when I attend my local camera club I get an overload about the art to balance my overall intake. The camera club has all brands of gear and nobody much even mentions cameras or gear -unless its "underexposed" or "avoid glare" comments. The judge never looks over a photo and asks "Who shot this and what settings did you use?" the Judge just comments on the merits of the image -and is likely blunt enough to say "This shot has zilch going for it -its a thoughtless snap. Try harder next time, even if it a cliche result. Why are certain shots popular? Next..."

[neil_r]

I am convinced they line them up on a shelf and stare at them all day, or stick them on e-bay as unused.

No, they all took pictures of their boxes once ;) :lol:

N

[lakiluno]

But to somebody without a DSLR you're nuts and how can it possibly be that expensive...
sari.

I agree...my parents think I'm mad to want to buy (and to save up for ages for) the stuff in my sig wishlist, but thats pretty much the cheapest of the cheap when it comes to DSLR's...its a cruel world :D

[cjm]

I hear ya. Since going to the lens board I have spent over $500, sold my telephoto lens and am most likely going to spend another $650! Its pretty expensive going there.

[Becca]

amen... I am doing my best not to feel unworthy and insecure about what I am shooting with.. But, here's something i've realized. the only folks that know that your not shooting with a thousand dollar lens is photog's.. Nobody else cares how much it costs.. You say $300 bucks and to you, that's cheap.. But to somebody without a DSLR you're nuts and how can it possibly be that expensive... and there are too many folks with incredile equipment who aren't shooting, makes me a little sad......atleast I can say that good, bad or ugly I make use of what I have......

sari.

I agree Sari! My mom almost had a fit when I told her about the great deal I got on a Speedlite ($175). She thought that was outrageous, especially since there was already a flash on my camera. :)

When I first joined this forum I got the impression that I needed to run out and buy a more expensive camera (because, not only was mine "old" but it was SILVER *gasp*) and a bunch of new lenses. Then I read something that someone posted here (wish I could remember who said it because they saved me a bunch of money) that said something to the effect of "If you aren't taking pictures to the fullest capability of your current equipment, better equipment won't help you take better pictures"

[cjm]

"If you aren't taking pictures to the fullest capability of your current equipment, better equipment won't help you take better pictures"I say stuff like that but I don't use the word fullest or capability but its great advice.

[ScottE]

Don't you find the lens forum rather amusing. No matter what the question is the answer from somebody will be (a) Tamron 28-70/2.8, (b) Sigma 24-70/2.8 (c) Canon 50/1/8.

It doesn't matter that you are trying to decide between a 300D and 350D because you can't afford anything more, don't get the EF-S lens that meet your current needs because sometime you might decide to get a full frame camera.

L seems to be some kind of god. It doesn't matter that you shood hand held in low light, pushing IS well beyond the recommended 2 or 3 stops. The might God, L, will somehow overcome you terrible technique and produce photos that can be printed at 100% pixel view.

Look at my EXPENSIVE new lens. See how sharp it is from the image I have downscaled to 400 x 600 pixels.

If I am sick at home with the flu it is great entertainment and I can't help but post a few contradictory comments to stir up the pot.

[cjm]

LOL ScottE. But it seems to be the trend.

I believe in buying L series lens either if you are experienced enough or a professional and thats your full time job. For n00bies I do not unless there is a specific need for one. The only L I'll be buying anytime soon is the 70-200mm L f4 mainly because its better then the 70-300 IS lens in sharpness. And I am a guy with a disposable income of at least $1500 a month I just don’t see the need to buy all L. And I don’t really care for my 50mm f1.8 either W/hood.

[Mathiau]

I am at a point being so new to lenses and all i will read over threads that catch my attention, however i am , i think, good at filtering out the "fanboy" information vs. the useful information posted by knowledgeble people.

So for all you pro's above, dont leve me hanging, pop in once in a while to help me out ;)

[JCR]

I'm guilty of being a noob/non pro with 1x L lens :D
My justification, It has to last me, I don't want to buy the same thing 2x in my life. I didn't buy the L for snob value, 99.9% of people seeing me use it likely won't know it's monetary value anyway (if that's important). Luckily I had read enough information here to decide the body is ultimately disposable as tech and my knowledge develop, but not the lenses, they may have to last me 20+ yrs.
I saved a shedload of cash by buying the 350D to learn with.
I'm a bit disgruntled with the plastic AF/IS switches and plastic hood tho, I expected 22carat gleaming gold with nice specular diffusion effect on those rare days I take it out the box to admire it ;)

[Becca]

I say stuff like that but I don't use the word fullest or capability but its great advice.

LOL cjm! Well it may very well have been you who gave me the good advice. I guess I shouldn't have put quotes around it because I was just paraphrasing what I understood the comment to mean.

So Thanks! :)

[RacingMoose]

While checking out a couple threads here this morning, there's another in the "talk about photography" section that exhibits some of the comments everyone is talking about. The original poster mentions getting a Rebel XT and asks for tips and advice with her new camera. One of the replies she gets is to consider one of these lenses:

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM or EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
normal zoom:
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
telephoto zoom:
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Somehow doesn't seem like the advice she was looking for...

[cjm]

Here is a story about a n00bie asking asking for lens advice.
n00b: "What lens should I get? I can spend at most $500 and no more. I want something for a walk around and general purpose lens."
Poster 1: "Get the 17-35mm L you can't go wrong!"
cjm: "The 28-135mm IS would probably be all around perfect for you. Its under $500 and it will never leave your camera"
Poster 2: "Why not get the 70-200mm L 2.8 IS and the 17-85mm L? They'll work for you"
Poster 3: "If you can get the 17-85mm L, its perfect, I love it!"
Poster 1 quotes cjm: "I don't like that lens because its not that good in low light, its only 3.5-5.6 and I just don't feel it has any durability. I sold mine fast it was terrible"
cjm: "I like this 28-135mm lens, its not a L but so what"
n00b: "Im so confused what is a L supposed to mean? Do these lens you said cost under $500?"
Poster 1: "ha ha ha no"
cjm: "the 28-135mm IS does"
Poster 3: "ha ha ha nope"
Poster 2: "each one costs more then $1000 and and some cases cost $2000+"
n00b: "Ah thanks :("

[condyk]

[B]Here is a story about a n00bie asking asking for lens advice.

I never asked for lens/body advice again after ending up with a 70-200mm f4 for shooting wildlife :lol: :lol: When I complained it didn't seem too good in low light (UK) and seemed too short I was advised to get a 2x TCon. I followed the advice again. Now it didn't AF and the viewfinder was so dark I could hardly MF either :rolleyes:

[mijbril]

With an almost continuous range of 12 - 500 in my lenses & 2 primes in my kit, I have the lenses I need, so there's no real need to visit that often, I still read reviews of new lenses etc, but meantime, I'll just save up for new, long & faster primes when I can afford them at some point down the track :)

People with more tech knowhow & deeper pockets than me use the same (or better) lenses as I do, so they can give purchasing advice as well :)

[Poe]

While checking out a couple threads here this morning, there's another in the "talk about photography" section that exhibits some of the comments everyone is talking about. The original poster mentions getting a Rebel XT and asks for tips and advice with her new camera. One of the replies she gets is to consider one of these lenses:

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM or EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
normal zoom:
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
telephoto zoom:
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Somehow doesn't seem like the advice she was looking for...

I had a nice mental chuckle as well, since I've been keeping up with this thread before the one you referenced was posted, and knowing full well that 4 of 6 of those are $1000+ lenses when that response came in.

I think the lens section is helpful when wanting to know more about a particular lens and need more technical information on equipment. But that's about where it ends. The nit-picking over lens sharpness just leaves an empty feeling that you can't take great photos with the equipment you have. I too agree with the general sentiment in this thread and have been spending more of my days here on this section of the forum rather than the lens section. Although it is occasionally fun to take a peek and see what the latest debate is for a chuckle.

My local art museum just had a "DREAMING CALIFORNIA: RUTH-MARION BARUCH, BILL OWENS, AND LARRY SULTAN" photography exhibit as well as work from my university's photo club. Film photos mostly exhibiting californian life from the 60s & 70s but a few photos from the 80s and early 90s. There were large 20 x 24 prints on the walls and I'd walk up to them and stare at the grain and see noise and lack of sharpness. It really hit me then that pixel peeping for digital is silly. If you're going to make a print that size from a digital image, you aren't going to look at it from a distance of a few inches, you're going to stand a few feet away (at least you should). At that distance you'll hardly be able to see the noise and unsharpness (and you can better apreciate the print for what it is --- also assuming that you've made the print with the correct dpi resolution so that it appears sharp from your desired viewing distance). For web images in a virtual gallery, you'd resize the photos to smaller dimensions and never be able to see such imperfections.

I guess for some people they get caught up in the imperfections of their equipment and figure why bother with making photographs when they are just going to be imperfect. I think its more a matter of composition and that really gets the "oohs" and aahs" and "wows" from people.

[Sean-Mcr]

I never asked what lens i should get. I just read up on what lenses i''d need to shoot how i wanted to. I kept to just the kit for six months and read and came to my own conclusions.
Bought my two primes and the 16-35 realizied i'd made a mistake and back went the zoom, got a sea of people saying "it's awesome no way would i part with it" (If they had one).

Waited another six months and chose my final two lenses based again on what i wanted and not on the projection of desires of others

[snappa]

Hello again Sean how is it going mate ? Have to agree with almost everything said on this thread BUT, you knew it was coming, if everybody with good advice/intentions boycotts the Lens Forum what will happen to the poor sods new to photography and looking for help ?
As you well know a certain name springs to mind here who is almost famous, nay infamous, for "Look what I`ve got now" threads. Nuff said !

[Holly]

I'm pretty much a newbie here and the lens discussions have only confused me...LOL...I figure I will do the research on my own and hope I make a decent decision. :)

[condyk]

As you well know a certain name springs to mind here who is almost famous, nay infamous, for "Look what I`ve got now" threads. Nuff said !

I wonder who that could be? Personally, I don't mind 'look what I got' so long as they show some shots and give a bit of a review. What I dislike are the 'I ordered X, I'm still awaiting X, the brown truck with X on it didn't arrive, the Brown truck still hasn't arrived with X on it, the brown truck eventually arrived 5 minutes ago, I just opened the box, X was inside the box, which end of the camera does X fit into?' threads. Get a life!

[Sean-Mcr]

Hello again Sean how is it going mate ? Have to agree with almost everything said on this thread BUT, you knew it was coming, if everybody with good advice/intentions boycotts the Lens Forum what will happen to the poor sods new to photography and looking for help ?
As you well know a certain name springs to mind here who is almost famous, nay infamous, for "Look what I`ve got now" threads. Nuff said !



Hiya John boy

The road to hell is paved with good intentions John:evil: :D

I just don't want have debates on lenses any more just for the sake of it. Sure i'll give any advice if it should come up, but i'm not going to seek out people to give advice to or to seek out debates or come across them, that are so subjective they're actually pointless having.

I don't know what somebody is to take out of six different opinions. I'd actually advice people to do their own research and draw their own conclusions


Fair enough this is a Canon related site, so the clue is in the title. No complaints from me. I do have good lenses and i've never once cleaned them:confused: I'll have to get around to it

[::John::]

Then there are the threads where the OP asks for advice. Around page 3 the OP makes a decision and posts to that effect, however at page 6, 'helpers' are still advising what lens the OP should get. There appears to be a post blindness that prevails - "You have made your decision but, dammit, I am going to have my say."


Much like the camera body question (What is this <<insert focal plane icon here>> ?)

20 people say the exact thing. Do people not read other peoples posts?

[DocFrankenstein]

20 people say the exact thing. Do people not read other peoples posts?
If people rarely listen to each other in person... why would they bother to read each other's posts? ;)

[cjm]

I don't know about the listening part. Usually if I read a OP's post I will first reply to that, no matter if it is a 3 page (50 posts per page) type thread. I don't have enough time to read every massive thread.

I fell into the prime example. I bought the 50mm 1.8f because its a great lens. Sure its a great lens but I never, ever, ever use it. Last time I used it was when I bought my 20D in person from a fellow POTN'er to try my lens on the camera and make sure it works. I then used it to take pictures of my 10D to sell it. Im just a hobby photographer. What on earth do I need a nonzoom prime lens for? I don't I think.

I also believe that the people asking "Which lens should I buy" do not need ANY prime lens, they certainly do not need the 50 1.4 or any L prime lens. In fact the n00b might be down right pissed off that the lens doesn't zoom, like the first prime I bought years ago. I thought it was broken thats how green I was.

[Sean-Mcr]

Basically what a person needs is so individual that it it has to be up to them to decide. It's not for any of us to tell anybody what they "need"

Myself i have no real interest in zooms. So what i was doing posting in zoom threads god only knows because i sure as hell don't. Wasting my time talking about the 24-105 when it's a lens i'm never likely to own.

[snappa]

condyk, I will assume your first sentence is rhetorical as I believe you know the person I am talking about. Sean certainly does. Sadly the folks I am talking about do not provide reviews and only post shots of their latest acquisition.
Sean, It is bordering on the sacrilegious not to have cleaned your lenses. Sackcloth and ashes immediately and not to clean the lenses with. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" Had a bad day mate ?

[Jaymz]

Much like the camera body question (What is this <<insert focal plane icon here>> ?)

20 people say the exact thing. Do people not read other peoples posts?

This is the primary reason I have a low post count, I just don't like to repeat the same thing many others have already said.

[DavidW]

While checking out a couple threads here this morning, there's another in the "talk about photography" section that exhibits some of the comments everyone is talking about. The original poster mentions getting a Rebel XT and asks for tips and advice with her new camera. One of the replies she gets is to consider one of these lenses:

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM or EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM
normal zoom:
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM or EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
telephoto zoom:
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM or EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Somehow doesn't seem like the advice she was looking for...
You're talking about this thread (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=159064). I, too, didn't much like that advice - which is why I posted in that thread as I did. I'm fortunate to have two of the f/2.8 L zooms, and will probably be buying the one I don't have from that list shortly. It happens that f/2.8 zooms suit me and my photography, I'm not buying them as status symbols and I know they're not for everyone.

I gave the advice that there's less expensive lenses that can take great pictures, and to research carefully. This includes cheaper Canon lenses (the sort of comments that cjm makes come to mind) and some Tamron and Sigma lenses.


Helpfully, the-digital-picture.com (http://www.the-digital-picture.com) is now reviewing third party lenses. I like the commentary and information given there; I find the reviews quite objective and helpful. He's pretty scathing about some cheap consumer lenses, but provides comments I find helpful on most mid-range gear.

L doesn't necessarily mean great and non-L doesn't necessarily mean junk. It's a case of the right tool for the right job, bearing in mind budget.



David

[bonzaisushi]

From a noobs perspective. The lens forum has given me a toe hold into understanding some fundimental basics.
I now don't expect my 28-105 USM to work inside a church too well without some kind of light help, neither do I expect my 24-105 IS to capture a perfectly sharp hand held image of a roundhouse in action.
Then again my arguing about a lens would be pointless anyway, would be like a fish disagreeing with a bird on the fundimentals of flying. :)


dont they have flying fish:D :lol:

[ScottE]

dont they have flying fish:D :lol:
If you want to see fish flying go to the fish market in Seattle. They didn't look like they were very knowledgeable about optics though.

[wooof98]

I too am I refugee from the Equipment forums - fed up with the constant "guess which 'L' I've got now?'" I will admit here and now that I do have an 'L' and will be adding another soon but purely as I want a 300mm f4 with IS and no one else makes them (tho I'm sure Nikon must lol). My current crop of glass serves a purpose, each one chosen for a task and used for that task - regardless of if its an 'L' or any other exotic glass. What it produces is whats important to me - not the cost or desirability (perceived or otherwise).

But then, suppose I'm odd as I've never photographed my 'L' box? (grief...)

...and what is it with sharpness?? Unbox a lens and then complain "it isn't sharp" online - glance down the lens forum for complaints and you'd think people used coke bottles bolted to front of their dSLRs or is Canon's lens quality that bad? And, just how are you expected to ascertain sharpness on an uploaded image when viewing on a 72-96dpi monitor/screen? And noise...doesn't anyone remember film grain? I'm not that much of an old-timer that I remember you only used 400 ISO stock with trepidation due to the golf ball-like grain....although there were times when WE wanted golf-ball like grain - ah...memories lol

I, like others, are far more interested in how people work, the images they create, how they got to that effect etc. Glad to hear there are others here too!

[cjm]

LOL Martin I remember the 400 ISO film. I mainly used 200 ISO when I used the stuff because it seemed the most balanced film for my needs. I remember though people buying 800 ISO film thinking it was better then all the rest. I always laughed.

I laugh at when people complaining about "lugging" around their 20D for a long hike. My dad has a Praktica camera with 200mm zoom lens. You want heavy? You can't even use it with out a tripod. And we're talking a 200mm lens that weighs around 10 lbs!

Then my favorite complaint is about RAW. RAW pictures can be altered and fixed, etc etc blah blah blah. What happened to taking the picture, usuing the settings properly and snap? I agree that some pictures need post processing because the sensor isnt perfect (yet) but not to the point where you can alter the amount of sunlight in the picture.

[Claire]

If I want to make a purchase, then I'd head for the lens section, otherwise, what's the point really? I don't know much about all the technicalities anyway. As long as I can use the lens, then I'm fine. :)

They day I can afford a bunch of nice lenses, then I'll jump over there, ask for advice and buy the things I want. After that, back to the phot forums.

[RacingMoose]

I headed over to the lens forum to check out the comments on the 17-85IS that I saw on an auction and this current thread is another good example of some of the comments that it's all about the equipment.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164379

[neil_r]

Prompted by this thread I made a quick visit

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1459174#post1459174

Then ran away.......:rolleyes:

[CyberDyneSystems]

As a mod I'm going to stay out of the bulk of this conversation ;)

But I will say one reason why I at least will post with a "repeat" answer... and do it often in fact.

So many times a question will get totally contradictory replies,. sometimes it's a difference of opionins,. often enough it's someone getting something wrong.
In such a case I do not like to say "no you have that completely wrong" ... I prefer to simply add my own agreement to the one who answered "more correctly" :)

It's almost like casting a vote for the better answer :lol:

When were talking strictly opinion,. I will clarify that too (I hope)

[mbze430]

I never asked for lens/body advice again after ending up with a 70-200mm f4 for shooting wildlife :lol: :lol: When I complained it didn't seem too good in low light (UK) and seemed too short I was advised to get a 2x TCon. I followed the advice again. Now it didn't AF and the viewfinder was so dark I could hardly MF either :rolleyes:

HAHAHAH, who told you to get those? that's way too sad.

[mbze430]

Personally I love the Lens sections. Not that because its informative, its actually the opposite. It is a great way to have fun and a few laughs. You don't know how many times I literally rolled out of my sofa or chair.

I will give some honest advise/opinion there, but most of the time. Its a calling to get the avid lens huggers to come out.

You basically have 2 sort of people in those parts of the forum. The green guys looking to buy a lens, and most likely I would say, 80% of them just need a consumer level lens. Anyone been shooting long enough wouldn't ask about lens.

Than you have the collectors. In case of this forum, the L-coholics... or whatever they call themselves. Its fun messing with these people, because they spend all their money thinking they are buying the best. Little do they know that real collectors possibly have only a few L lens.

Now I think about it, I hardly consider them collectors.... more like L lens huggers. LMAO.

Anyway, I am wasting time on this... I need to start another batch convert and waste more time deminimizing those in those forums....muhahahahah

;)

[elTwitcho]

I don't bother with the lense section because I'm just not that concerned about the gear aspect to be honest. I've got a 10D and three lenses, all of which cost under 200 bucks each. I'm happy with em, they work good, and in the "landscape and cityscape photog of the year competition" my 140 dollar lense worked it's way into third place among all the Ls and such, so like I said, I'm just not that worried about it.

[neil_r]

This gets better and better......

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1460716&postcount=10

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1461514&postcount=29

and how about this.......

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=160293

[condyk]

This gets better and better......



Well that 1.2 is unique within the Canon range as the joke of all joke lenses. It is extraordinary how these guys reinforce each others crummy shots :lol: :lol: It can deliver beautifully, but it seems to me the keeper ratio is very low and it is so obviously a specialist studio lens that anyone with sense wouldn't want to waste their cash over and above the 1.8. We see a few good shots from it but they are all snapshot style and pretty much a waste of the lens potential. We see better shots from lots of other stuff that is more flexible and much less money. You can buy L glass easily but you can't buy an interesting shot.

[SuzyView]

I've been catching this thread every once in a while lately and I find the conversation disturbing. About 7 months ago I joined the forum thinking I was a decent photographer, not a pro, but a good amateur. I didn't really know a lot about lenses because I didn't have the money then to invest or cared to. After joining, I came across the lens section and read a lot of reviews and even heated discussions about brands, zooms, primes, etc. I learned quite a bit in a short time. I re-evaluated the gear I had, which was quite honestly, minimal. Due to the excitement of those getting new lenses and showing their capabilities, I got the bug myself and decided I needed to learn more. I purchased books and went on line to find deals and reviews. I purchased my 50 1.4 because someone had asked the question about its quality vs. the 50 1.8. After purchasing a few more nice things, I found the people in the lens forum very fun to talk to about those purchases. We celebrated together. No one in my house cares what I got, they are not photographers. So, if the lens forum is too much of a self-congratulatory place, so be it. I like that people take pictures of ducks with new lenses. That's funny. My family doesn't get it. I like it when I ask a dumb question and the Mods come on and answer it. I usually do a search first, but if nothing seems to answer my question, I post. Since I've got the gear I will be using for the next little while, I haven't come on the lens forum as much. But as for newbies are always appearing, I like to think we can all be helpful. MY 2 cents.

[condyk]

MY 2 cents.

Perfectly valid, as are the points above. It all depends on ones perspective and there are no right answers. There is some valuable advice offered there ... and there is a lot of rubbish. We each judge for ourselves.

[In2Photos]

I've been catching this thread every once in a while lately and I find the conversation disturbing. About 7 months ago I joined the forum thinking I was a decent photographer, not a pro, but a good amateur. I didn't really know a lot about lenses because I didn't have the money then to invest or cared to. After joining, I came across the lens section and read a lot of reviews and even heated discussions about brands, zooms, primes, etc. I learned quite a bit in a short time. I re-evaluated the gear I had, which was quite honestly, minimal. Due to the excitement of those getting new lenses and showing their capabilities, I got the bug myself and decided I needed to learn more. I purchased books and went on line to find deals and reviews. I purchased my 50 1.4 because someone had asked the question about its quality vs. the 50 1.8. After purchasing a few more nice things, I found the people in the lens forum very fun to talk to about those purchases. We celebrated together. No one in my house cares what I got, they are not photographers. So, if the lens forum is too much of a self-congratulatory place, so be it. I like that people take pictures of ducks with new lenses. That's funny. My family doesn't get it. I like it when I ask a dumb question and the Mods come on and answer it. I usually do a search first, but if nothing seems to answer my question, I post. Since I've got the gear I will be using for the next little while, I haven't come on the lens forum as much. But as for newbies are always appearing, I like to think we can all be helpful. MY 2 cents.

Suzie,
I too joined recently and the first place I went to was the camera section, followed by the lens section. I needed to know what gear to buy. But after a while I find that all the discussions are about the exact same thing, day in and day out. Many feel the need to brag about their latest acquisition and post shots of the lens and box rather than using the lens to take photos. They seem more interested in their gear list than using the gear. Then they like to bash other "inferior" lenses. I once read a thread about how good the 85L was and the pics posted looked like crap, IMO. I then posted a pic using the 50 1.8 which seemed much "sharper" which is what they were after. But that didn't matter as it was not an L so only sir condyk made a comment about the shot.

Don't get me wrong I am a gear-head. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering because I like electronics. That it was got me into most of my hobbies, the gear. But once I learned the gear the experience becomes more important. For example I have been into Home Theater and have always like BIG speakers. There are speakers that cost several hundred thousand dollars but my bargain basement speakers still work for me. They sound good enough to not spend more money on replacements.

[DavidW]

Suzie - I think you have a valid point.

I'm not primarily a gear head - though I did amuse a friend of mine by saying that watching the Winter Olympics was like a dose of camera porn (all those EF 300mm f/2.8L IS and EF 400mm f/2.8L IS lenses on the side lines). Equipment is a way to make pictures - not to be admired in itself, though there is joy in being able to use quality equipment.

My attitude to equipment is very much a systems analysis approach - the right tool for the job. As it happens, most of the equipment I have here is better than average, because of the uses it's put to - for example, the last printer I bought was a 21ppm colour laser with three trays, a duplexer and a built in network print server. However, the load that's put on it is not typical home office (a single job of 250 pages in colour, duplexed is not an unheard of requirement - one family member is a freelance consultant). However, if a cheap piece of kit will do the job, there's no point paying more than is needed.


I headed over to the thread that Neil flagged up on the previous page and made what I hope is a balanced reply to it here (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1462208).

That particular thread is very awkward, as the original poster has not really said what limitations of the kit lens he's trying to overcome, and has set a low budget. In many ways, it's set up for unhelpful answers, but suggesting he pays three to four times his budget for an EF 17-40mm f/4L really isn't on.

Personally, I'd think very carefully about the limitations of what I had before buying more equipment, and would probably save up a bit more - but in his position, maybe wouldn't jumping to L glass unless I felt the EF 17-40mm f/4L really was the right answer and was prepared to keep saving for some time. Something like the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS that you mentioned, Suzie, may be well worthwhile - the-digital-picture.com (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) rates it as a "good quality but affordable walkaround lens".


I can see the danger of people being discouraged because they've scrimped and saved to get their 350D and kit lens, then they come onto the lens forum asking about an upgrade and often one of the first replies will mention the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, the EF 24-105 f/4L IS, or, indeed, buying both. It's a bit like people asking about post-processing software and being told that they should buy Photoshop CS2, then someone else comes along and says they should also buy Aperture or another expensive RAW converter, then someone else says you also need a DAM program.

The first version of Photoshop I bought was CS2 (actually I bought the whole Creative Suite 2 Premium as I had applications for Illustrator, InDesign and Acrobat), but I had extensive experience in Corel Photo-Paint and knew that I'd use the powerful features. Someone recently asked in the post-processing forum about what software to buy, and I suggested he install DPP and Photoshop Elements 2 that he received with his camera, then upgrade to DPP 2.1, ZoomBrowser EX 5.6 and EOS Utility 1.0. He could do all that for no extra expense, then see where that left him rather than immediately rushing out and spending US$300 on an upgrade to Photoshop CS2. If he found the limits of Photoshop Elements 2, he could then compare what he wanted to do against the feature list of Elements 4 and CS2 to see which was the wiser purchase.

I do recommend that people use a hardware monitor calibration solution - but whilst I use and like Monaco OPTIX XR Pro, all that many people will need is a Pantone Huey - it will get them close enough at a fraction of the cost of an X-Rite/Monaco or Gretag Macbeth product.


I think it falls to us all to make intelligent replies. I know your philosophy and mine, Suzie, has been to build our equipment up over time, and think very carefully about each purchase. We have enough experience to be able to weigh the pros and cons, and we'll probably work out what our expectations are sufficiently well to avoid buying twice because we went too cheap the first time.

I've come to realise that my photography would benefit from an ultra-wide angle zoom. Because low light indoor use is a distinct possibility (indeed, more than half the situations I've found myself wanting something wider than the 24mm of my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L are indoors, often in dubious light when using flash is unacceptable or not ideal), I came to realise that this meant the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L. I've read widely about the differences between that and the EF 17-40mm f/4L, and I'm experienced enough to be able to weigh the issues.

Deciding on the 16-35 has meant a lot of saving - fortunately I'm not one for instant gratification and am more interested in having the right tools for the job. I'm not one that's interested in buying and selling equipment - if I buy something, I buy intending to keep it for the long term. I'll probably be buying a 16-35 in about three weeks time, and if I do finally buy the lens, I'll do so with the money in the bank to pay the credit card bill immediately.


A photographer friend of mine once commented that buying high end lenses and looking after them well is like cheap long term rental - even if you bought them new, you can sell them after a year or two and recover much of what you paid for them. Her proviso was that you had to have the money to buy the lenses outright for that to be true - if you had them on finance of some sort, they could become very expensive. Of course, you mustn't forget the insurance aspect of having expensive gear, too.


As with my comment back on page 1 of this thread, I hope that we can all be intelligent in what we say to others. At times I have felt discouraged by both the lens and EOS camera forums, in seeing people buying more and more expensive equipment and finding myself questioning the inadequacies of what I had. I realise that that's crazy, considering I'm fortunate enough to have two lenses that many people can only dream about, but that's the way I find myself responding to certain posters.

For example, I'm never going to have long wide aperture telephoto lenses. I can see their point, but they're too bulky for me to be able to cope with physically, are way outside what I can afford, and I just wouldn't get the use from them. I'll probably buy an Extender II 1.4x for my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (probably the best of all the Canon zooms for use with a teleconverter) which will get me to 280mm at f/4 - a very usable setup despite its limitations, and achieved at modest cost and little extra weight in the bag.

After I've done that, I may eventually go for one more lens at the long end of things - possibly an EF 300mm f/4L IS (which could be used with a 1.4x to give a 420mm f/5.6 combination) or possibly an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, though I don't much like the way that lens handles. If Canon produce an IS version of the 400mm f/5.6L, that may well become favourite. That's it, though - 300mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4 is never going to make sense for me other than as a fleeting dream. If I really have a short term application for such expensive and heavy lenses, I'll rent the lens together with a suitable tripod and head, and make sure that I have someone with me to help me transport, set up and take down the equipment.

I'd like to build a macro setup at some point - but that will almost certainly be based on the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, not the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro, as the 180mm lens just isn't worthwhile for the use it would get. I'd want a light lens that can stay in my bag, rather than a heavy lens that would more than likely get left at home and will be more awkward to support well. That's not saying that the 180mm isn't a fantastic lens for serious macro work - just that it's not justified for the use I'd get from it.

I may well eventually buy one or two fast primes - but things like the EF 85mm f/1.8, not the EF 85mm f/1.2L II. For the use I'd get from them, it's very unlikely that the purchase of L primes is justified, and whilst I've seen some very good shots with them, I've also seen some excellent results with the cheaper, slower lenses. The very wide aperture lenses are quite specialist pieces of equipment anyway - you need to think very carefully about how you'd use f/1.2! As others have said, some of the shots that have been posted from these very expensive lenses seem to be more to show that the poster has one of these expensive lenses than making a balanced judgment about depth of field. I think very carefully before shooting at wider apertures than f/4.

For lighting, I realise that multiple Speedlites are expensive and probably won't give me what I want as there's always limits with battery powered flashes, especially when you start trying to use them with accessories such as softboxes. Not only are flashes not idea for softbox use, but they have no modelling lights, can overheat if used heavily and you hve to keep changing batteries! Good quality studio lighting may well make more sense, though I'm constrained by ceiling height and space on what usage I'd get out of it (like most modern British houses, we only have 7 foot 6 ceilings, also space is at a premium). My next lighting purchases will be a flash bracket and a collapsible reflector that is portable enough to take around with me. I'll probably also buy some desk lamps with daylight bulbs - with a tripod and remote release, which I already own, that will allow me to do quite a lot of experimentation for little outlay.


Most of all, though, my emphasis has moved increasingly away from researching equipment. I have most of what I need in my Canon outfit for all the types of photography that interest me. Learning, developing my techniques and artistic side, and simply taking pictures are all cheap with digital.

I realised that I should focus on my results and all I'm learning as I progress. A recent series of photos I took has drawn some very admiring comments from people at the event, not least down to what I believe was some very thoughtful post-processing. I made full use of the capabilities of my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L for those shots, and realised that, for me, it was a wise purchase. That said, the most moving shot of the series would have been quite possible with lesser glass - it was 38mm at f/5.6, so possible with the kit lens, even. I know that the kit lens image wouldn't have been as good technically as the same shot on my 24-70mm, but the audience weren't photographers and I doubt they'd have spotted the difference.


That is where the whole thing ends for me - with the results. A good photographer can get good results with modest equipment. A bad photographer will likely get lousy results with a whole camera store full of equipment. There are times for any of us when we're up against the limits of our equipment, but that can't be helped.

As you said, Suzie, the other people in your house aren't photographers - it's the same for me. My gear has drawn admiration when I'm out and about, which isn't always a desirable state of affairs, as I've been left feeling a bit uncomfortable a couple of times over what I felt were quite patronising comments towards me, as a guy in a power chair, with decent kit.

All I've learnt in the past ten months since buying my current Canon outfit and Adobe Creative Suite 2 Premium has, I hope, brought pleasure to people. My post-processing skills recently allowed me to rescue a precious family shot for a friend that had very uneven light and an obstacle in the way of the lens. When I sent back the fixed image, I explained to her how she could have avoided the worst of the flaws in camera, and she told me that she'd learnt more about photography from my email than from any book. Some of my recent images have moved people. I hope I've given back for the blessings I've received in terms of the equipment I've been fortunate enough to obtain.



David

[neil_r]

At first reading this thread could be seen as divisive, but I became increasingly frustrated with the lens section as it started to be dominated by posts that were by varying degrees misleading, unhelpful and just plain wrong. On pointing out some of these shortcomings one is normally subjected to thinly disguised abuse.

I have in the past looked to see if any of these posters had links to online galleries or had posted pictures here on POTN, to be honest there were not that many that had. I accept advice from anyone who knows what they are talking about and has a demonstrable track record. I post advice myself and I am happy that anyone can look at my online gallery or posts here to determine for themselves if my advice is worth taking or not.

It is hard enough for people just starting out in photography to make informed decisions on purchases without being bombarded with such bad advice.

I am surprised that some of the more adventurous gear heads have not come over to mount a defence, perhaps if we hang a mirror and a bell we could get at least one of them over ;)

[EOSAddict]

Look what you miss when you go away for a week! ;)

[DavidW]

Neil - I've always felt too timid to post many shots - I have let one or two slip out on to the forums, but that's it. I see the excellent work that others do, and always feel a bit inadequate.


Nevertheless, you've challenged me - what of my shots are online right now can be viewed here (http://www.wood2.org.uk/photos). I have deliberately selected only shots that I'm at least fairly pleased with, as I believe it's best to be selective. Some display mistakes that I would not have made now and some have self-critique in the comments.

I want to move the whole lot to EE, but am probably going to wait until 2.0 releases to do so. For now, it's just a redirect to Webshots, which I don't regard as that great a place to post pictures, but I had the account anyway to retain invites to private galleries from friends.

Honest critique is welcome. You can use the guestbook (though expect it to be lose in the move to EE), by PM or send me an email via the forum.


I've got some powerful images from a couple of weeks ago that I regard as my best work to date. I hope I'll be adding those images as a new gallery this week - I'm still working on the post-production. Bronze tones are awkward; even with decent colour management you need quite different settings to print than to display on screen.



David

[BottomBracket]

I pop in once in a blue moon at the lens section mostly to pitch in my opinion on a particular lens. My suggestions are based on real world use and I have developed preferences for certain lenses. I really love to pop up there when someone asks about MF lenses.

That said, I agree with most that the Lens section is mainly inhabited by those leaning towards being gearheads. Nothing wrong with that though, as being a gearhead is simply a different expression of the passion for photography. I am amazed though how some people manage to keep their lenses in pristine condition. My lenses, while not really abused, do get knocked around eventually. I even lose the box a couple of months after purchasing.

[SuzyView]

Pio, I've seen your gear and you sure use it all! I admire that and have learned seeing you and the other POTN members. Jon and Mark and Dave all have great gear and use almost all of it. I have never taken my stuff out as much, but since I've been a member here, I've been braver and I am not intimidated by anyone with good gear. Believe it or not, I knew my gear was okay, not great, but okay. Now I have some stuff I can't say is just okay. I shouldn't be complaining anymore and I won't. I probably take about 10x more pictures than I did a year ago, thanks to you folks. So, as you said, Pio, I am giving real use opinions on some of the new gear I have compared to the old stuff. And I have noticed that some posts are plain wrong, but we are to help each other, so I'm not the least bit annoyed if someone corrects my advice, just do it nicely, okay? ;)

[cjm]

For all the bad advice there is on the lens fourm. (Yeah BAD advice is someone who tells someone who only has a kit lens to go out and spend $1500 on a L lens!) There is also great advice too. I was looking for a UWA lens. I was thinking of going the Canon EFS 10-20 route. Then some people talked about the Tokina 12-24 lens. Well I eneded up with the Tokina and have no regrets! Yeah ok so in the last month I have spent about $1200 on lenses (thats a lot since only a year ago I thought $400 for a camera was expensive!).

My no.1 favorite thing is, when I had a gear list being told that I don't know what I am doing based on it. I know what I am doing, I just don't know about every flippin thing about L series lenses. I am more interested in working my job and taking pictures when I am able to and not totally exhausted from my job. When I am exhausted I am on POTN, learning and answering the TRUE question someone with a kit lens is asking, whats a good lens for my needs, my budget.

Photography is only as expensive as you make it to be. Some can take the most amazing pictures with the cheapest cameras, while others can't take a good picture even if they tried even though their gear cost them thousands.

[Sean-Mcr]

My gear happens to be very good, i never asked a soul what lens should i get, i never asked what house should i buy or car or what girl was right for me. I'm equally as bored by people who go on constantly about L lenses as i am by those that go on about obscure or classic lenses. There's much band-standing on both sides and what they often have in common is the belief they that know better then the other

Let the blind lead the blind

[cjm]

This is an interesting thread. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164988

Its a clear example about hype. Does .4 F stop make enough of a difference? I extremely doubt it. Its all about having the "best" lens for bragging rights. Its ok though because car people spend oodles on their car, woodworkers spend a fortune on their saws, real painters spend a mint on their paint and canvas and some spend a lot on photography. If they have the money to spend its no problem. But...

I'll say it again, if the person has to ask what lens to buy? Then they do not need a L series lens at all. Love it or hate it but that's true.

[BottomBracket]

This is an interesting thread. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=164988

Its a clear example about hype. Does .4 F stop make enough of a difference? I extremely doubt it. Its all about having the "best" lens for bragging rights. Its ok though because car people spend oodles on their car, woodworkers spend a fortune on their saws, real painters spend a mint on their paint and canvas and some spend a lot on photography. If they have the money to spend its no problem. But...

I'll say it again, if the person has to ask what lens to buy? Then they do not need a L series lens at all. Love it or hate it but that's true.

In your example, the difference between the 1.8 and 1.4 versions of the 50mm is not simply confined to the ".4" difference.

[ssim]

Wow, I took the time to read this entire thread. I will admit to spending much less time in the lens forum. I really tire of the "look at what I got", "waiting for mr brown", etc. threads. I will also admit to having a fairly decent selection of glass but I have never once gone on this forum to ask for help.

It has lost its sense of professionalism. It is jabbing back and forth between some posters that also have a large selection of glass. I fail to see the value that this adds to it. I will visit on occaison and try to add some comments on what I view as serious questions. If I see a poster that has a couple of thousand posts and then is turning around asking a question on a lens it is, imo, by and large, baiting for a humour discussion to follow.

Yes, I have fallen to the humorous threads on occasion. I find that there are some posters here that are only here to provide entertainment and you learn which ones you can ignore.

This does not apply only to the lens question. I recently PM'd a member that I hadn't seen in nature in quite a long time. The answer that I got was that it had lost its seriousness for them. I quote "How many squirrel pictures can I endure from one poster". It was disappointing for me to have this member not posting much anymore as they really did amazing stuff.

[oakleydo]

I have many hobbies, cycling, woodworking, photography, and bar-b-que (jack of all trades, master of none) and this problem exists in each. For example,in cycling, there are bike snobs who need to have a $5000 road bike but aren't as fast as the guy next to them on an old beater.
To me, it seems to boil down to our desire to get better at something by the easiest possible means, throwing money at it. I know that I'm as guilty as the next (or would be if I had the cash). I know I was thinking I needed the 70-200 f.4 L, but am rethinking after reading many valid posts in this thread.

[snappa]

There are, as you say, many valid posts in this thread but I don`t think it should deter you from buying any lens that you believe you need. I am not an L maniac or part of the "Look what I`ve got" brigade but the lens you have mentioned is an extremely fine lens. It is also cheaper than at least two EF-S lenses that I can think of.
I believe the whole point of this thread is to illustrate the, sometimes, useless/futile advice given to unsuspecting folk in the Lens section of this Forum. There has also been quite a few digs at the LWIG brigade who choose to post pictures of lens boxes etc. As yet I don`t think any of the aforementioned have participated in this thread.
Confession time. Yes I do have the 70-200 f4, never mind the L. Yes it is a very good lens. No I will not sell it to get the 2.8 version as I am very happy with it.
Do not be put off IF you think it will benefit you.

[Sean-Mcr]

I never started this thread to influence peoples purchases, that's one thing i've never allowed anybody to do to me on this forum. I'll decide on what's right for me not Joe Random from Enlightendville

[KatmanDu]

I have to admit, I read the lens forum. I read the EOS forum. I read most of the photo sharing forums, the Talk About Photography forum, post processing, etc. etc. I do skip over threads; I do get tired of endless ducks from time to time; I do get depressed looking at spectacular shots on a level I just haven't reached yet.

But I've learned a lot from all of them. Ideas on composition, technical aspects, creative ideas... even on the lens forum. I learned that this Quantaray, while far from my favorite lens (I'm always afraid I'm going to snap it in half taking the hood off), is capable of some very good shots if used correctly. I read a lot of comparisons on the 50 1.4 and 1.8, followed a lot of links, filtered it all through my BS filters; before I decided on the 1.4, and I've been very, very happy with it.

I guess the problem is I'm interested in almost all areas of photography... different styles, disciplines, equipment. Maybe that'll wear off. Maybe not.

Anyway. Back to reading!

[cjm]

I have many hobbies, cycling, woodworking, photography, and bar-b-que (jack of all trades, master of none) and this problem exists in each. For example,in cycling, there are bike snobs who need to have a $5000 road bike but aren't as fast as the guy next to them on an old beater.
To me, it seems to boil down to our desire to get better at something by the easiest possible means, throwing money at it. I know that I'm as guilty as the next (or would be if I had the cash). I know I was thinking I needed the 70-200 f.4 L, but am rethinking after reading many valid posts in this thread. All my wood working tools are different brands. Some are very cheap, all were a bargain and all are not used as much as I would like to use them. They all produce great results when I actually use them. After all a saw is a saw is a saw.

I was thinking about a 70-200mm F4 L a month ago. I went to the lens fourm AND did some good old research on this lens. Checked it out in a store and came to the conclusion it is the best deal lens wise from Canon, after the nifty 50. Its clear upto 100% which is a major upgrade from my 75-300 IS lens I sold on ebay for over $400. Don't think of it as buying a L rather buying a real good lens. But a lot of people told me to buy the 2.8 version because its better. When asked why or when reading others ask why the answer was "because it will do better in lower light". I'm not a L brand fan, rather a tool that works fan. The 70-200mm f4 L is a great tool, one I would have bought even if it wasnt a L and white (wish it was black).

[wooof98]

I'll decide on what's right for me not Joe Random from Enlightendville

Shouldn't that be 'L'lightenville? :D

[Lord_Malone]

I miss Sean. He was one of my best friends on this forum. :(

[Mike R]

I confess, I don't own any L glass but I'm happy and not too much in debt.

[krazziecliff]

Ok time for confession, I dont own any Lglass, I dont even own a proper Canon lens apart from the kit lens. I love the lens sections, its like window shopping. There are alot of ego tussles, but if you filter what you want to read then its very helpful. But I have to agree that people here are more passionate about a "70-200mm f4 with IS vs a 70-200mm f2.8 without IS" discussion than a Critique section for example. Maybe its just easier to buy Llens and flaunt them. Giving constructive criticism and discussing ideas need alot more than money in the bank.
Having said that there are alot of experienced photographers who put alot of time and effort into sharing their ideas and helping newbies out. I have learnt alot from the critique corner section. Talk about photography is a good section too. I've started to steer away from the Lens section for 2 reason, one..I dont want to spend my hard earned money on lens just because some idiot in SC didnt think of walking a little closer to the hen instead of pulling out his 400mm f2.8L IS U. Its chicken!!! tiny steps dont scare them away!!

[krazziecliff]

I didnt mention 2 did I? LOL...i'm jealous!! hahahaha

[cdifoto]

It doesn't really matter what lens you buy, but if you want to look "pro" make sure it's big. Or at least have a bracket.

[Mark_Cohran]

Wow, talk about resurrecting an old thread.

It was still a fun read though.

Mark

[EOSAddict]

So what happened to Sean, did he leave POTN on purpose or just drift away? I liked hearing his viewpoint!

[peatoire]

I do browse the lens section, mainly if I'm bored and have done the others to death. The whole 'I've got more 'L's' than you', 'L' fever & 'just pulled the trigger' thing is a bit tiring at times and I do avoid reading thode threads. I suppose there is an element of people wanting a feeling of belonging, a 'now I'm with the big boys' kind of thing, others are like magpies and just like collecting shiny glass, whatever floats your boat. When I got my 70-200 I was very exited indeed but couldn't really see any point in broadcasting it to the photography community. I post comments here and there if I can help, that is what I see that forum should be used for.