Defining L Collector

condyk wrote in post #2178365
That's cool kid. I get it. I likee your stylee. That Mario Party shot of yours is a true classic. I also likee this: 'But where's the adventure in that? So I dug out my amazing Yashica.'

Keep up the good work y'all

I'm touched.

Intermediate for me, thankyewverymuch.

No duplicates in the designated L category, but if you count lenses that would have been Ls if Canon had Ls when they were made (FD 200 f2.8 and FD 600 f4.5), I am a double sociopath - luckily, I can escape that tag based on that criteria. Doesn't disqualify me, though. . .

Have Fun,

Petkal wrote in post #2176898
OK, let's try to settle it once and for all, based on the number of L designated lenses in a person's possession. Here are the corresponding coLLector L[COLOR=black]eveLs:

(1) 0-0: "Wanna L" or "ConTyke"

(2) 1-3: "Recruit"

(3) 4-7: "Trainee"

(4) 8-10: Intermediate Collector or "Yanitschar"

(5) 11-15: Advanced Collector or "Pasha"

(6) >15: Grand Collector or "Vezir".

(7) Collectors who have both MkI and MkII of the same lens, such as 85L and 200 f/2.8: "COD Collector"

(Eight) Collectors who have duplicate lenses, such as two 85L MkI: "Sociopath"

Not to wee wee on your bonfire , but methinks you may need more criteria in order to truly define the "type" , is ownership alone enough to hold the nomenclature true , ie. I own enough L lenses but would never consider myself a collecter . Also does one not gain extra kudos in the lower ranks for having a higher ranking L , or is a 300 2.8 not worthy of more kudos than a 17-40

peacock wrote in post #2178510
... is a 300 2.8 not worthy of more kudos than a 17-40

Bingo!

peacock wrote in post #2178510
Not to wee wee on your bonfire ...

There are methodological issues in the design of categories Peahen, agreed But Petkill is a 'golden-oldie' who's mental faculties tend to vary wildly along the following continuum:

Genius --0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10--Barking

Positioning at any specific point in time is hard to assess accurately online, but is usually according to heaviness of dosage administered by his indulgent wet nurse.

Given this tragic scenario we can't blame him for the flawed methodology. So, we can indulge or, perhaps with the help of a favoured Savant Prodigal type like that extraordinary man-child Ronald we can rate each and every Canon lens that has ever been made available in EOS mount on a scale of one to three.

Then, any sad punter just needs to add up the scores of his collection and align self with a set of judgemental categories, similar to those outlined already, i.e. you might score a 1 for the crappy 24-70mm L but a 3 for the 600mm L.

Anyway, I'm sure you get the drift, so go and find Ronald and compile this whole mode of self/other comparison between you ... and may the best lad or lady win.

I shall create that rating, condyke, as long as you create a rating of each and every cheap european MF prime that can be fitted to an EOS camera. Deal?

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2178758
Deal?

No, that is not a task that chime's well with my Myers-Briggs personality profile. I am best at big picture and defining clear objectives, as above. This is a team effort. I can't be expected to do it all.

So you want to do just Pentax, then?

Only Peter would come up with a thread like this one! Rub it in! I'm not going for the bait as I am saving for my 5D and won't be insulted at all as a "Recruit." I'm loving my L's and my primes, thank you.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2178829
So you want to do just Pentax, then?

Pentax 50mm 1.4 -----> 3
Pentax 50mm 1.7 -----> 3
Pentax 200mm 4.0 -----> 3

Mike Johnston 'I have owned or used the Carl Zeiss Contax 50/1.4, the AF-Nikkor 50/1.4, the Canon EF 50/1.4, the Leica R 50/1.4, a Yashica 50/1.4, The Leica M 50/1.4, and the Voigtlaender Nokton 50/1.5. For all-around image quality in real pictures, the Pentax 50/1.4 is my favorite of them all.'

I would actually like to pick up a couple of those "classic primes" now that I can easily MF. Any thoughts, condyke? How much does one of those 50's go for, and where might I find one? Feebay? I'd like to try a "competitor" 35, as well. How do these lenses do for edge sharpness? Ok for FF? I realize they were made for film, but I've noticed some old lenses that crap out toward the edges.

Defining L Collector

I dunno ... I'm a shooter not a technician

You need to talk to the likes of ******** or ***** about all that sharpness type rubbish Or, maybe Maestro Buze can help you as he's an authentic expert in the MF stuff. I think he has a 5D. PM the fella.

Zeiss 35mm 2.4 is wonderful, but only if you're a shooter who likes pictures that mean something. No good for the likes of ******** or *****

Check eBay. EBay in UK/Europe probably better. Don't expect to pay a fortune, but don't skimp either My 1.4 wasn't cheap but still less than 30% of the Canon price

peacock wrote in post #2178510
Not to wee wee on your bonfire , but methinks you may need more criteria in order to truly define the "type" , is ownership alone enough to hold the nomenclature true , ie. I own enough L lenses but would never consider myself a collecter . Also does one not gain extra kudos in the lower ranks for having a higher ranking L , or is a 300 2.8 not worthy of more kudos than a 17-40

Not in my system. However, perhaps in yours or Dante's that sorta thing would count.
The objective here is not to measure the $ spent, nor the size, nor the combined weight of all lenses. My system is based solely on numbers of discrete L lenses in one's possession, be they stolen, a "free gift", or a 600mm L prime paid $7,000 for by its owner.

Granted, there could be many other more complex lens collection merit systems such as:
* Number of images taken with each lens as a weight factor in the final equation.
* Amount of money a lens has made to its owner as a weighing factor, i.e., if no $ earned with it, the lens does not count in the final number of all lenses.
* Number of responses (posts) a lens "Yippeee I got it" thread has generated on POTN. BTW, in such case ColickyKat would probably win hands down with one single lens he got/found/inherited (?)....which was, incidentally, a 300 f/2.8.

Second, whatever system we developed, a couple of key system design criteria had to be met:
(0) Connie boy could not avoid getting "zippo" in any system because he simply ain't got any. Right, I am referring to his photographic huevos as well as his L lenses.
(1) Connie boy has never gone beyond grade twelve math level according to the Irish Catholic Senior High School Standard for Girls. Which really means that Ronald's young relative (see Ronald's avatar) can probably count to 15 less haltingly and less erratically than Connie.

You left out Psychopath.

Also, in reviewing that list that Ronald put together, seems to me you really need to separate the wheat from the chafe.

You, Pet, got a bunch of slow glass in there. Time to junk some of that older crap and get some new replacements.

I hear Ron is selling a gross of 24-70s.


dolt

Maybe we should rate collectors like coffee cups in Starbucks:

Tall, Grande and Vente.

Personally, I'm a small. When I add the 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 and the 500 f4 to my collection, then like George Jefferson and Weezie, I'll be movin' on up to the East Side, to a Deluxe apartment in the sky.

dummy