For SERIOUS L Collectors' Eyes Only !

condyk wrote in post #2123351
Two serious responses:

petkal wrote:
...Good tools can not guarantee good results

MDJAK wrote in post #2125176
Now, he tells me. You could have saved me a bloody fortune. Croikey.

mark

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.

blonde wrote in post #2127291
... some like my 100-400 are actually great value and offer something that other lenses do not.

condyk wrote in post #2127312
Funny looks from members of the public?

:p

laimis.s wrote in post #2127347
gosh this thread is really useless. over 9 pages i couldnt find a post which actually said which products are best for cleaning lenses. Some posts are funny though.

laimis.s wrote in post #2127347
gosh this thread is really useless. over 9 pages i couldnt find a post which actually said which products are best for cleaning lenses. Some posts are funny though.

condyk wrote in post #2127763
Ha, ha ... Preston ... I used go shopping there every Saturday as a kid