:: One More - L-MATH ::

[ilya]

One more thread about L. This is the definitive decision tool right here.

IMO, it all comes down to a simple matter of what you can or want to spend up front.

Underlying assumption in this analysis is that you will sooner or later upgrade, and later will not use the non-L lenses very much.

Another assumption is that you just purchased your 10D/Reb etc plus some odds and ends. That's the point where most people ask about L.

Example 1:

Get a 28-135 IS (good walkaround lens for $400)

OR cover that range immediately with:

a) Simple- 17-40 L and 70-200 4/L -- $700 + $600 = $1,300

b) Gold plated - 16-35 L and 70-200 2.8L IS -- $1,400 + 1,600 = $3000.

Presuming that you'll have the 28-135IS for 4 months before making the jump to either scenario a) or b), you will have paid about $100 per month for the pleasure of using the 28-135 lense.

Your total out of pocket under that scenario during the first 4-6 months will be $1,300 + $400 = $1,700. Under the option where you just get L upfront, it just costs you the $1,300 (or $3,000 or whatever)

Of course, again, that assumes that you WILL upgrade after 4 months (which you have to come to grips with is fairly realistic).

Example 2:

You're considering buying the 75-300 IS as a cheap long zoom. It costs $400.

OR, you are considering doing the full monty up front (full monty being what you're left with after spending that much money:

a) Basic - 70-200 L/4 + Canon EF 1.4xTC ($600 + $280 = $880)
b) Gold - 70-200 L/2.8 IS + 1.4xTC ($1,600 + $280 = $1,880)

Same math. You're either rationalizing a $100 per month "use" fee for the 75-300, and thus paying $400 + $880 = $1,280 for the first 4-6 months, or you are just paying a little more up front - $880 instead of $400 (or $1,880 vs $2280).

It just depends on your pocket book - and more important, how honest you are with yourself.

There are dozens of variations on the above, but you get the point :lol:

Ilya

[KennyG]

I think the whole lens question and decision process should be thought through before you get to the math.

Ask yourself a series of questions:

1. What do you intend to take pictures of - kids in the back yard, cats, ducks, eagles, landscapes, portraits, basketball, etc.

2. What lens focal lengths and apertures will cover your requirements.

3. Out of all your chosen subjects, which is/are the most important - the basketball, landscapes, etc.

4. How important is it to have the best possible quality image - web only, small 4x6 prints only, etc.

Once you have your priorities of subject(s) and understand the lens required, buy the very best you can get in that range. Instead of having a bag full of cheap 'ok' lenses, get one or two really good ones and schedule in the others as and when you can afford them. Only pros need worry about the return on investment, for everyone else it is simply a cost. And yes, go the extra and buy 'L' series if possible. With very few exceptions quality comes at a price.

Don't buy what you don't need. If, for example, you shoot mainly landscapes then a long zoom or prime is a luxury you can live without. If you shoot indoor sports then a wide aperture zoom may be what you need before considering anything else, and so on.

Remember, a lens is just a tool and like any tools you need the right one to do the job and quality does matter.

[Jesper]

I don't see any logic in your L-Math and I don't think it's very realistic either. Maybe for you it sounds logical, but what equipment you choose is a personal choice and everyone has their own reasons to go with a certain setup. I don't think it's possible to setup a recipe that works for everybody or even for "most people".

I'm perfectly happy with my 28-135 and 17-40L. I can make great photos with the 28-135 as wel as with the 17-40L. The next lense I'm buying will be a telezoom, and most likely it will be the new 70-300 DO IS USM. OK, it's not very fast, but it's very small, light and inconspicuous. I don't want a big, fat, heavy white lens that attracts attention.

A while ago there was a discussion about someone who wanted to go to a sports game and he had to conceal his 70-200L white lens because the gorillas at the entrance wouldn't allow "professional-looking cameras". A small, inconspicuous lens would be much more useful than a big, white lens in that case, even though the white one maybe gives you just a tiny little bit more image quality.

You can't catch everybody's reasons for buying certain lenses in a mathematical formula....

[RichardtheSane]

I agree with you Jesper, a simple formula will not cover the majority of users in that way. I should think only a small percentage of users become L glass users because for price - and often if they havn't experienced L glass then why would they have a reason to need to upgrade.

I think Kenny has nailed the way people should be making decisions on their lens purchases...

[ilya]

Perhaps the subtlety was lost here.

We are at a point that when talk about L lenses everything is a bit tongue-in-cheek. There are very many similar sounding questions... and similar sounding answers.

I'm not about to set out a "definitive guide to lense purchasing" based upon a cost amortization principle of a non-L lense.

Having said that, one point should be taken seriously.

How honest you are with yourself. It doesn't take much soul searching and forum studying to understand whether you will or won't get a high quality lense or stick with a medium quality lense in the near future.

Its also made clear very often that people should get lenses to fit their shooting preferences Its not rocket science nor is this kept a secret.

The decision is ALWAYS made more difficult by cost constraints. If everyone had purchasing power up the yazoo, the questions would be more like "I just bought 20 canon lenses, how the hell should I store them- front up or front down?? Can I use my 1000 bottle wine cellar for storage??? Is 55-58 degrees then a good storage temp for lenses as well, as I don't want to get another wine cellar???"

Therefore, and I'll be clear so that there is no misconception:

If you are at a lense buying decision, and you are relatively new:

Please understand thoroughly what you need

If you figured out that you'll need high quality lenses eventually, figure that it will be sooner then later.

If you have the cash, figure the equation above will save you money in the long term. But also figure you can always sell the lenses you don't use.

Cheers
Ilya

[Sendide]

You've made interesting remarks and subject,
let me tel you my simple opinion, most of the time, regardless of what the question was, L on non L lens, Wide angle or telephoto zoon, prime or zoom ..... everytime it can be a boring question or answer, but only for those who have been in the photography flield for long long time. You have to consider though that on the other hand, lot of this forum participants (myself included) are beginners and lurn A LOT form those discussions, we learn from others experience , honesty and tests. personally I will never thank you guys enough.
a simple exmple, I was hesitating between a 16 35 f2.8 or the step down 17-35 F4, reading and learning, I realized that for landscape, I can jsust go for F4 cause I'll be pushing the aperture further anyways. A person in this forum even gave me a link comparing in details those lenses and showing even more shaprness with the 17-40. owners of the 16-35 will find themselves defending the other lens and tlaking about how fast it ca be ..... I went for 17-35 F4.
regards

KHalid

[brutal]

I think you are way to hung up on gold and basic or whatnot. These are lenses that work with every EOS ever mad (EOS is almost 25 years old right?) If you spend 1400 on a lens, it is very possible that you get 10 years of use out of it with proper cleaning and filters for protection which means that lens is 140 dollars a year. I really do not understand your logic? To me your logic makes as much sense as putting a 10 dollar UV/ haze filter on a 70-200/2.8L IS

[ilya]

You don't get it. Move on.

[CyberDyneSystems]

All I know is the math is making my head hurt

[ilya]

If I simplify, will everyone just let this poor thread die?

Here it is:

You've done your research. You know what you want.

You know you can get by with a Gold-band. But you know that you really want an L-lense. For whatever reason. Don't overthink this part.

As many can attest, this is a sickness. In a few months you will likely outgrow the gold banded one, and buy the L anyway. I did, I know many others who did same thing. The 28-135, the 75-300, etc all good lenses that are paperweights now.

So what you've done is postpone the inevitable. In the process, you spent money on something that became redundant.

My point is that if this is the track you are on, postponing the inevitable will cost you more in the long run. Because you've bought a cheap(er) lense before buying the expensive one.

Let me know if that's at all unclear. I hope its clear, I don't know how to make it any freakin' clearer. Now I have a headache. :roll:

[Belmondo]

With a 200,000-cycle, my 1D Mk II is going to cost me about 2 1/4 cents per picture. So far, my 10D has cost me about 37 1/2 cents per picture. Clearly I am buying the new camera to save money.

I sold my 28-135 for a little less than half of what I paid for it new. I estimate I took maybe 200 pictures with it, so it cost me a little over a dollar per picture.

If pictures are worth a dollar apiece based on the return attributable to the 28-135, I'm now way ahead on my 24-70L becasue I've taken a couple thousand pictures with it.

On the other hand, I have a 50mm f/1.8 that I've taken exactly 6 pictures with. That's about $12.00 per picture---arguably the most expensive lens I own.

I have a a 75-300 that I've taken maybe a hundred pictures with, so that works out to somewhere between 4.00 and 5.00 per shot. (I don't remember what I paid for the lens.)

I'm going to defer to Ilya who appears uniquely qualified to explain the chaos theory and how it equates to the obscene amount of money I've wasted on little-used lenses over the last year.

[nosquare2003]

Excellent advice from Kenny G.

My lenses purchase criteria include:

1. focal length(s) / zoom or prime
2. aperture
3. weight and size
4. auto-focus speed
5. lens optics quality
6. closest focus distance
7. price (any lens accessories, filter size)
8. lens specialty (macro)

Not all the above criteria are considered most of the time, especially the lens specialty.

Cheers

[ilya]

Thos

"Understanding chaos is understanding life as we know it. " (by someone smart)

Its nice that you mention chaos. Because we cannot accurately describe the current situation with the detail necessary, we cannot accurately predict the state of the system at a future time. For instance, stock market success can be predicted by chaoticians. Short-term investing, such as intra day exchanges are a waste of time. Short-term traders will fail over time due to nothing more than the cost of trading. However, over time, long-term price action is not random. Traders can succeed trading from daily or weekly charts if they follow the trends. A system can be random in the short-term and deterministic in the long term. I can attest to this as I've tried both.

Applying that to buying glass, one inference is that you ought to look at the long term in order to get the best value out of the equipment that you buy.

The problem here is that analysis fails under two conditions - if you had a nice ride, and you can afford it, then you probably got your moneys' worth.

Cheers
Ilya

[rick barclay]

There is no rhyme or reason to lens-buying. It's all impulse.