Lenses that just aren't worth it....

Have you ever looked at a lens and wondered how on earth could it be worth that much? Most of the time, I am able to justify the cost of a high quality lens in my head simply by the product they provide but some lenses just seem way over priced. The most recent lens I'm currently scratching my head over is the Canon 50 1.2L. I'm a huge fan of the 50mm lens and when Canon announced a 50L, I was quite delighted....until I saw the price. I currently own a 50 1.4 and it's just an all around great lens IMO. I would've seriously considered the "L" glass until I had seen the price was over a grand more than the 1.4 version. I don't doubt that the lens is superior but could it really be over one thousand dollars superior? I guess that question is relative and dependant upon the user, but I just don't get it. Canon has a few other lenses that leave me wondering why anyone would spend the extra cash when there is already a great lens to fit the situation at a fraction of the cost. Does anyone else come accross this?

I am looking at the 85 and asking the same question. $2000 for f1.2L or $350 for f1.8. I love to have the very best but I'll bet the 1.8 can do 95% of what the 1.2 can.

By and large Canon, like most companies, charges what the market will bear. Simple as that. It's worth it to someone, therefore, it's worth it.

jra wrote in post #2180493
Have you ever looked at a lens and wondered how on earth could it be worth that much? Most of the time, I am able to justify the cost of a high quality lens in my head simply by the product they provide but some lenses just seem way over priced. The most recent lens I'm currently scratching my head over is the Canon 50 1.2L. I'm a huge fan of the 50mm lens and when Canon announced a 50L, I was quite delighted....until I saw the price. I currently own a 50 1.4 and it's just an all around great lens IMO. I would've seriously considered the "L" glass until I had seen the price was over a grand more than the 1.4 version. I don't doubt that the lens is superior but could it really be over one thousand dollars superior? I guess that question is relative and dependant upon the user, but I just don't get it. Canon has a few other lenses that leave me wondering why anyone would spend the extra cash when there is already a great lens to fit the situation at a fraction of the cost. Does anyone else come accross this?

To professionals who want every advantage they can get gear-wise, it doesn't seem like much, as it'll probably pay itself off later. A thousand dollars to a professional might not seem like all that much. If they are doing in-studio work and using a 50mm a lot, getting the best might just make sense (well, the best from Canon, I'm sure you could ring up a nice bill from Leica or something.)

Drookie, have you seen the bokeh on the 1.2L? *Drools.* I am happy with the 1.8 and am sure it'll do everything I need, but I'm just an amateur/enthusiast at the same time.

The new 50L on the 1.6 crop is what the 85L is to the full frame. The best portrait lens. If you are really into that, then you'll pay the top dollar.

glass is expensive, but then there's also the "name"and of course the market giving some leeway. Canon clearly doesn't make it for everyone.

These lenses fall into my 'Joke Lens' category. Canon is laughing it's a** off all the way to the bank over hobbyists who buy this stuff. Show me a gaggle of hobbyists with more than a handfull of typically dull but 'sharp'd, bloke-eh's and razor DOF'd' shots that they the post ad nausium as examples of excellence and I'll eat my words

condyk wrote in post #2180782
These lenses fall into my 'Joke Lens' category. Canon is laughing it's a** off all the way to the bank over hobbyists who buy this stuff. Show me a gaggle of hobbyists with more than a handfull of typically dull but 'sharp'd, bloke-eh's and razor DOF'd' shots that they the post ad nausium as examples of excellence and I'll eat my words

What difference does it make either way? I'm sure a lot of golf club companies, boat manufacturers, etc etc etc etc are in the same position. For people who need to use the gear, they need to use the gear. And a lot of "amateurs" produce better work then a lot of "pros."

Actually, I like the comment from one of the guys at the camera store here in town. He said, "Lenses are like race cars. Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?"

There seems to me to be a geometrical progression in cost going from f/2.8 to f/1.8 to f/1.4. And in Canon lenses, there are major differences between L and non-L lenses (he said, stating the obvious). In any event, it does all fall down to "what do you want to do with it, and how fast do you want to go?"

Mark

I will buy the 50/1.2 or the 85/1.2 if I ever have the money. No questions asked. L is L is L, and even though the 50/1.4 is a great lens (I'm looking forward to getting one!!) if I was working full-time as a photographer I'd certainly add the L primes to my collection. Why? They're the best. Build quality is incomparable (built to last through very rough conditions) and generally the IQ improvement is amazing too.

Well, unless you define the criteria for how to calculate that "worth" it's all down to personal opinion.

That's the attitude I just can't stand. The whole, it's an L, it's the best etc. etc. etc. blah blah blah. Don't get me wrong, Canon makes great lenses. But in the end they're just a tool. I would rather spend $2,000 to improve my exposure, composition and "feel" ability than to buy something just to take sharper pics. There's people in the photo sharing section that drip ability with their 18-55's and 50mm 1.8.

In the end, there's a picture. Whether it is "good" or "bad" very rarely is dependent on the lens. And that's beyond opinion in my book.

Eventually the 50 1.2 will probably find its way into my bag... unless my shooting habits change greatly upon the purchase of a 70-200 and 24-70 (which I doubt as I need f/2 or lower about half the time) and the better AF, sharper at 1.4/2 (hopefully, anyway) and build quality (shoes, beer, people and various other things have been known to come in contact with my 50 when I've been shooting so having a buffer lens just in case would be nice) would attract me towards it... and since I make money off it hey, why not? It will pay for itself eventually (though very, very eventually at my current rate which will hopefully go up by the time I consider purchasing such a lens).

Both the 50 and 85f1.2 would be a wast of money to me as I have the 50f1.4 and 85f1.8 and I dont use them often but for people who do want them good on them its there money and nothing to do with anybody else,If I want something I just buy it and don't regard it as a wast of money.

There's a lot of "worrying about what other people do" going around, what if someone just wants to be a gear collector and appreciates owning nice stuff? It's a perfectly fine hobby in my opinion, no worse than owning "too nice" cars or any other "too good" tool. What's it to me or you? I think people should worry more about their own decisions and their own photography rather than worry about what other people do or what other people think. If a specific lens isn't for you what does it matter if comeone else needs or wants it?

I'm glad others think the "top" lenses are overpriced. I really think that while being really good lenses, they are still overrated. When I went digital I didn't see any other choice at the time other than Canon.
I have never been a fan of Canon film gear and felt it was plastic and flimsy compared to my old Nikon gear. I have a lot of "L" glass and while it is very good, it is not easy to get a perfect copy of many of the lenses.
With the Nikon lenses, I never had a bad copy for over 30+ years.

When I see an 85 for $2K I am sick that my Nikon 85 1.4 (the brand new one) is only $999 and I bet you anything it is equal or better quality. I use it on my F6 camera but I don't shoot much film anymore.

I guess Canon feels superior at this time and can charge whatever they want because we digital shooters are their hostage. Yes, there are a lot of Nikon digital shooters but Canon is number one.

I don't mean this to be a Canon v. Nikon debate. I only want to show how I believe we are being gouged by a company who believes they have no equal. Maybe when Nikon has FF sensor and zero noise at high ISO the race will resume and the market will become competetive again.

Sorry to rant but do any of you feel the same way? Are we being taken for a ride? Are the Canon 1.2 lens offerings really worth that kind of money?

Lou