For SERIOUS L Collectors' Eyes Only !

Petkal wrote in post #2122934
I'd say so, Turbo, based on the self portrait quality from your avatar.

I knew I was forgetting to do something after switching from Nikon equipment. I'll get around to reshooting my avatar one of the days with a GOOD camera, now that I own an "L"...

Hah, fixed in under 30 seconds. Boy do I miss my Chef image...

condyk wrote in post #2122875
That's a frightening insight into the L Posse psyche son ... and it can only have been outlined with such terrifying accuracy by someone who has flirted with them but, ultimately, still managed to claw his way back to the light. Well done. It's encouraging, but it will take time. Stay strong. Buy a Zorki and go shoot some film. It could help.

Don't let lightstream kid you, he's got the L bug just as bad as anyone you can name
He's just an apprentice L collector at the moment.

Turbowolf wrote in post #2123085
Hah, fixed in under 30 seconds. Boy do I miss my Chef image...

Nice Polarbear shot taken with your Canon Davey ... or is that a sheepskin rug?

Permagrin wrote in post #2123206
Don't let lightstream kid you, he's got the L bug just as bad as anyone you can name He's just an apprentice L collector at the moment.

Not even an apprentice with that gear list. I've sold more L's than he can even dream about.

Okay condyk, I do have a serious question. So all joking aside...why'd you sell them? I have a few L's and have sold a few non-L's and frankly, I DO find the glass to be better on my L's and my overall shots to be better in saturation, in not being soft, than the sold lenses. (I have sold an L as well, so I don't think I've got the bug but I definitely will keep the lenses that further my photography.) So why sell them?

Dave doesn;t buy lenses, he rents them. The stores he gets them from just doens't realize it at the time.

Permagrin wrote in post #2123254
Okay condyk, I do have a serious question.

Two serious responses:

(1) Price to performance isn't necessarily there for me and that is simply because I am a happy amature; I get no financial return from my shots and nor do I claim any tax advantages through buying gear via my company. I pay out my own pocket, so my gear needs to deliver bang per buck. All will assess that differently.

ALL my L's have been good copies. But I believe that my Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX was as good as the 100-400mm IS L (I didn't like the pump action on the L either) and was more practical than the 300mm IS L and very close or equal in IQ to my eye. IS could swing it, but in the end I didn't need it.

My ex Bigma was not far behind in IQ, tho' I had a fantastic copy of that one bought off the photographer at the Natural History Museum in London, and it went happily from 50-500mm. Very practical and not as heavy or hard to handhold as some say (many of whom have never used it!)

My 24-105mm IS L was a fantastic lens but I so rarely used it above 50mm on walkaround that 95% of the time the IS was of no value and nor was the range. My current 17-40mm L hits the range I use for walkabout and has the IQ I would expect, but IQ is not better than my ex 15-30mm Sigma, just that the Sigma was too short.

The 70-200mm f4 is a great lens but needs more light than you might expect, esp. in the UK. Was too short for me much oif the time. My ex 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma was more usable but again I found the range didn't work.

I have several old classic Zeiss and Pentax lenses that in their day would have been 'L class' so really my standards of IQ and value are part conditioned by what they can offer and, as they are now around on eBay at amazing prices well L's just don't offer the return for me when I compare results (only if you know how to MF a lens and happy to use Av or manual mode).

(2) But really, my beef isn't against L's at all, nearly all of which offer a great combo of IQ, build (a bit exagerated tho'!) and USM. I may question the value myself, but I also believe everyone can make their own choice on that. No, it is more directed to people who seem to think all you need is expensive gear and who then try to encourage newbies to go spend a fortune so they can join the kLan. It sends the wrong message AFAIC.

The right message, for me at least, is that learning the craft of photography and so paying attention to imagination (something Petkal is master of IMO), exposure and composition will always produce much more satisfying and interesting shots than the 'yet another sharp Duck' shooter with their expensive gear are capable of. These folks are a small minority these days and things have been much 'worse' here in the past.

There is no instant gratification throught L's, unless your gratification is derived from buying and collecting. Anyone who wants to take a shot worth more than a glance or a technical critique (oh, that's sharp!) needs to learn to use their gear and imagine.

As I always say to new people being pushed to spend money they may or may not have ... you can buy a sharp shot but you can't buy an interesting one. We see that every day here. I suspect if we each chose our favourite 3-4 shooters we might be surprised by the gear a number of them are using.

condyk wrote in post #2123351
Two serious responses:

(1) Price to performance isn't necessarily there for me and that is simply because I am a happy amature; I get no financial return from my shots and nor do I claim any tax advantages through buying gear via my company. I pay out my own pocket, so my gear needs to deliver bang per buck. All will assess that differently.

ALL my L's have been good copies. But I believe that my Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX was as good as the 100-400mm IS L (I didn't like the pump action on the L either) and was more practical than the 300mm IS L and very close or equal in IQ to my eye. IS could swing it, but in the end I didn't need it.

My ex Bigma was not far behind in IQ, tho' I had a fantastic copy of that one bought off the photographer at the Natural History Museum in London, and it went happily from 50-500mm. Very practical and not as heavy or hard to handhold as some say (many of whom have never used it!)

My 24-105mm IS L was a fantastic lens but I so rarely used it above 50mm on walkaround that 95% of the time the IS was of no value and nor was the range. My current 17-40mm L hits the range I use for walkabout and has the IQ I would expect, but IQ is not better than my ex 15-30mm Sigma, just that the Sigma was too short.

The 70-200mm f4 is a great lens but needs more light than you might expect, esp. in the UK. Was too short for me much oif the time. My ex 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma was more usable but again I found the range didn't work.

I have several old classic Zeiss and Pentax lenses that in their day would have been 'L class' so really my standards of IQ and value are part conditioned by what they can offer and, as they are now around on eBay at amazing prices well L's just don't offer the return for me when I compare results (only if you know how to MF a lens and happy to use Av or manual mode).

(2) But really, my beef isn't against L's at all, nearly all of which offer a great combo of IQ, build (a bit exagerated tho'!) and USM. I may question the value myself, but I also believe everyone can make their own choice on that. No, it is more directed to people who seem to think all you need is expensive gear and who then try to encourage newbies to go spend a fortune so they can join the kLan. It sends the wrong message AFAIC.

The right message, for me at least, is that learning the craft of photography and so paying attention to imagination (something Petkal is master of IMO), exposure and composition will always produce much more satisfying and interesting shots than the 'yet another sharp Duck' shooter with their expensive gear are capable of. These folks are a small minority these days and things have been much 'worse' here in the past.

There is no instant gratification throught L's, unless your gratification is derived from buying and collecting. Anyone who wants to take a shot worth more than a glance or a technical critique (oh, that's sharp!) needs to learn to use their gear and imagine.

As I always say to new people being pushed to spend money they may or may not have ... you can buy a sharp shot but you can't buy an interesting one. We see that every day here. I suspect if we each chose our favourite 3-4 shooters we might be surprised by the gear a number of them are using.

The lens that truly makes me curious is the Tamron 200-500. I do feel sort of pressured for some reason to get the Canon 100-400 IS L when I go to buy the super telephoto.

Thanks for the responses. I was really curious because it did seem like you were against L's.

You do make very good points about being skilled in the art. (I don't make $ from my photog. either and all my equipment is with OOP $) That's one of the reasons that I look for all the reviews on the lens/cameras before I buy. After having a few lenses that were just a waste of money (I think I bought two of the worst canon lenses 18-55 and the 70-300 III) I decided that I wanted the "no risk" lenses the next time out. But again, when the choice came btw. the 17-40L & the 16-35L, cost effectiveness won and I can't say I've been disappointed.

What I mean by no risk is this: when a "what lens" opinion is asked here and at other forums, often you get 3 types of responders....the first being those who have purchased whichever lens and are wanting to justify their purchase, those who look down on anything except what they've purchased and those who are generally informed and either own and like it or once owned and didn't like it. It's very hard to know too, which is the best opinion. So I've found that unless I'm personally familiar with the lens (as in my tamron 90mm macro) that I know the glass is good in the L's and my elapsed turn aroud ratio is much lower when I purchase those (and if I have to sell them, they hold their value).

Your point is good though, about only advising L's for the sake of L's. I wish we could attach a BS meter on people's posts so we'd know exactly where the "advice" actually stands.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

Petkal wrote in post #2122723
Those are some very touching reminescences of your hale days, MD Jak.
Just keep in mind that we all walk a fine line between insanity(evil) and relative normalcy (good).

Yikes...I've been living for years thinking those values are reversed...

condyk wrote in post #2122875
That's a frightening insight into the L Posse psyche son ... and it can only have been outlined with such terrifying accuracy by someone who has flirted with them but, ultimately, still managed to claw his way back to the light. Well done. It's encouraging, but it will take time. Stay strong. Buy a Zorki and go shoot some film. It could help.

:p

condyk wrote in post #2123351
Two serious responses:

(1) Price to performance isn't necessarily there for me and that is simply because I am a happy amature; I get no financial return from my shots and nor do I claim any tax advantages through buying gear via my company. I pay out my own pocket, so my gear needs to deliver bang per buck. All will assess that differently.

ALL my L's have been good copies. But I believe that my Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX was as good as the 100-400mm IS L (I didn't like the pump action on the L either) and was more practical than the 300mm IS L and very close or equal in IQ to my eye. IS could swing it, but in the end I didn't need it.

My ex Bigma was not far behind in IQ, tho' I had a fantastic copy of that one bought off the photographer at the Natural History Museum in London, and it went happily from 50-500mm. Very practical and not as heavy or hard to handhold as some say (many of whom have never used it!)

My 24-105mm IS L was a fantastic lens but I so rarely used it above 50mm on walkaround that 95% of the time the IS was of no value and nor was the range. My current 17-40mm L hits the range I use for walkabout and has the IQ I would expect, but IQ is not better than my ex 15-30mm Sigma, just that the Sigma was too short.

The 70-200mm f4 is a great lens but needs more light than you might expect, esp. in the UK. Was too short for me much oif the time. My ex 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma was more usable but again I found the range didn't work.

I have several old classic Zeiss and Pentax lenses that in their day would have been 'L class' so really my standards of IQ and value are part conditioned by what they can offer and, as they are now around on eBay at amazing prices well L's just don't offer the return for me when I compare results (only if you know how to MF a lens and happy to use Av or manual mode).

(2) But really, my beef isn't against L's at all, nearly all of which offer a great combo of IQ, build (a bit exagerated tho'!) and USM. I may question the value myself, but I also believe everyone can make their own choice on that. No, it is more directed to people who seem to think all you need is expensive gear and who then try to encourage newbies to go spend a fortune so they can join the kLan. It sends the wrong message AFAIC.

The right message, for me at least, is that learning the craft of photography and so paying attention to imagination (something Petkal is master of IMO), exposure and composition will always produce much more satisfying and interesting shots than the 'yet another sharp Duck' shooter with their expensive gear are capable of. These folks are a small minority these days and things have been much 'worse' here in the past.

There is no instant gratification throught L's, unless your gratification is derived from buying and collecting. Anyone who wants to take a shot worth more than a glance or a technical critique (oh, that's sharp!) needs to learn to use their gear and imagine.

As I always say to new people being pushed to spend money they may or may not have ... you can buy a sharp shot but you can't buy an interesting one. We see that every day here. I suspect if we each chose our favourite 3-4 shooters we might be surprised by the gear a number of them are using.

And this sir, is why I refer to you ,with all my heart,as Master...

PEACHMAN wrote in post #2123619
And this sir, is why I refer to you ,with all my heart,as Master...

... and that sir is why I will never criticise you for wearing ladies underwear

Wow Peach, you have some lovely shots in your new gallery. Really nice. I am so proud of you

All this obsessive cleaning of your L lenses is doing them no good at all.

I let the grime build up then need only this tool to bring them back to pristine condition.

condyk wrote in post #2123664


... and that sir is why I will never criticise you for wearing ladies underwear

Wow Peach, you have some lovely shots in your new gallery. Really nice. I am so proud of you

Wow, I didn't know you had a lens with the reach to see me in those cloths...I'll start drawing the curtains.... (they do feel rather soft and nice though, so i won't stop all together!:rolleyes

as for the gallery, not an L among the shots..I'm no expert but I'm happy with most of them which proves your point exactly, and I must add not only your point, but most of these shots are from your advise on where and how to spend my money and concentration regarding equipment and execution...(note to any newbees)

condyk wrote in post #2123351
(2) But really, my beef isn't against L's at all, nearly all of which offer a great combo of IQ, build (a bit exagerated tho'!) and USM. I may question the value myself, but I also believe everyone can make their own choice on that. No, it is more directed to people who seem to think all you need is expensive gear and who then try to encourage newbies to go spend a fortune so they can join the kLan. It sends the wrong message AFAIC.

The right message, for me at least, is that learning the craft of photography and so paying attention to imagination (something Petkal is master of IMO), exposure and composition will always produce much more satisfying and interesting shots than the 'yet another sharp Duck' shooter with their expensive gear are capable of. These folks are a small minority these days and things have been much 'worse' here in the past.

There is no instant gratification throught L's, unless your gratification is derived from buying and collecting. Anyone who wants to take a shot worth more than a glance or a technical critique (oh, that's sharp!) needs to learn to use their gear and imagine.

As I always say to new people being pushed to spend money they may or may not have ... you can buy a sharp shot but you can't buy an interesting one. We see that every day here. I suspect if we each chose our favourite 3-4 shooters we might be surprised by the gear a number of them are using.

Good insights, thanks for sharing. I have always taken the "L only" crowd with a little grain of salt because I think 80% of the time we are kidding. ESPECIALLY the 300/2.8'ters telling everybody else to go out and buy it.. I joke along with them but have never had a real intention of owning such a lens. "Fiscally irresponsible" comes to mind. Some on the other hand are generating revenue from it, and is a different case.

But agreed, not sure the n00bs may know enough to do that at this point. I was very happy with my non-L glass and in fact it does deliver better bang for the buck. My EF-S Trinity was awesome.. 10-22, 17-85, 70-300 IS, very happy, case closed. Then I had to go full frame

I think it comes down to 'don't spend what you can't afford, and don't be unhappy if you can't afford it because a lot more depends on you and your imagination'.