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

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2180674
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 bokeh and the 3-d like quality that I have seen from some are spectacular. I drool just looking at that brick of glass. But $2K is sobering. I might be able to do it if I drink heavily before entering the camera store today. I'll give it a try!

There are some nice L lenses, but then again there are some that aren't worth the cash. Likewise, there are plenty of non-L and third party lenses that are absolutely fantastic. I have no doubt that Canon makes a ton of money from people with enough cash to "play it safe" thinking that they don't have to do their homework, so long as it says L they should be OK. Some even feel it necessary to change the color of the letter "L" in their sigs. When I'm looking for a new lens I do my homework in the way of determining MY needs, checking reports from trusted sources, and testing the copy I actually receive. There are some great lenses out there that you don't have to pay a ton of money for. I would put my copy of the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 up against any zoom in it's range. It does a fantastic job! If I were an "L jockey" I would have missed out on this great lens.

drookie wrote in post #2181446
The bokeh and the 3-d like quality that I have seen from some are spectacular. I drool just looking at that brick of glass. But $2K is sobering. I might be able to do it if I drink heavily before entering the camera store today. I'll give it a try!

$2k doesn't seem like all that much to me, when you consider how many people own that very nice and expensive 70-200 2.8 IS which can't compare at 85mm for example to the 1.2L.

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?

I think in business they call that the law of diminishing returns. There is a point where you have to overpay to get better quality. Only you can decide if the price premium is worth it to you.

the 50 1.2L isn't quite that expensive, it's about 1600 or so. It may be a lot for some, and for other's, it is just another day at the store. Is it too much to pay? Well, one never knows, till they own one. Buy what you want, there will always be something 'better' out there, with or without an L.

If you need a lens in a particular range - and you have looked at all lenses that are comparable for the range and need AND you still think the priciest lens is the one to buy - there, its worth it.

I have the 85 f1.2L and I did have to think long and hard before I bought it. I tested it in the store, and looked at various shots taken with it on this forum and others. For what I do with my photography for half the year (portraits, model portfolios, low light holiday parties, etc.) the price to get the quality is worth it to me. I probably won't purchase the 50 L simply because that's not a focal length I use much, but if it were (and I didn't have the 85 f1.2L) it might be worth it to me.

I don't see any need to complain about the cost of a lens. If you need it, you'll find a way to get it. If you don't need it, don't buy it. Canon is going to charge what the market will bear (that's capitalism for you), and obviously there are some photographers willing to pay the premium to get these particular lenses.

Mark

geez arnt there a bunch of whiners in here. if you need a lens to perform for a particular purpose at its best, and are being paid to do so, then why shouldnt you buy the best. if its purely a hobby for you, and you dont see any advantage to spending all your money on it then dont, no need to start a hate thread just because some people do.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2182239
geez arnt there a bunch of whiners in here. if you need a lens to perform for a particular purpose at its best, and are being paid to do so, then why shouldnt you buy the best. if its purely a hobby for you, and you dont see any advantage to spending all your money on it then dont, no need to start a hate thread just because some people do.

I agree, you seemed to rephrase exactly what I said in my last post, but better.

If I was a professional photographer who was doing well, I'd want every great tool I could afford to make sure my clients are getting the best I can offer them.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2182239
if its purely a hobby for you, and you dont see any advantage to spending all your money on it then dont, no need to start a hate thread just because some people do.

Go son ... I'm right behind ya!

A lens' worth is very subjective. It all depends on preference and need. It only costs a few hundred $ to buy an economy class ticket on a 747, but will cost you a mil to get your own private jet. So why do some spend that mil? Because they like it, need it, and they think it's worth it. Same goes with lenses. So don't go saying that everything is bull just because one person's taste differs from others.

A lens is only not worth it if you don't use it. If you use it a lot, then its value increases.

So even the 85 1.8 which is considered a value(relatively speaking) is not worth it if you use it once a year. And if you also had a 70-200 2.8 IS, but used it just about everyday, its value would be higher.

I think the most of the L lineup is not worth it. lol

If you can use the focal length the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM has to be every bit as good if not better than the EF 85mm f/1.2 II USM and/or EF 50mm f/1.2 II USM for a fraction of the cost. It can be had for around $800 shopping online and produces stellar images, similar color rendition and awesome bokeh.

Hawg Hanner wrote in post #2182473
If you can use the focal length the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM has to be every bit as good if not better than the EF 85mm f/1.2 II USM and/or EF 50mm f/1.2 II USM for a fraction of the cost. It can be had for around $800 shopping online and produces stellar images, similar color rendition and awesome bokeh.

I'm just curious, and this is not out of disrespect, but do you have any tests proving this? I just have a little trouble believing these sort of things w/o photos.