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

You know what I think? ( like anyone really cares I know )....

I think the 70-300 III is NOT worth the money you pay for it. As little as that is. It's a junk piece of lens. I also think the kit lens is not worth the money they charge for it either.

I also think the Tamron 90mm macro is a gem of a lens that no one really appreciates...and is worth it's price.

As well as my L's that I've purchased and kept...

My point, if a lens does the job you need it to do, it's worth it. If it doesn't, it's overpriced.

When colored gemstones were the rage (clear through the 1800's) Debeer's started a diamond campaign to make people think they NEEDED a diamond to propose "correctly" and they were so successful (wiped out almost 2 thousand years of thinking)......now tell me, how many of you proposed (or were proposed to) with anything else? It's marketing my friends...people are made to think they "need" 2.8 or they "need" L to be the best (which is the ultimate goal right?)....and so we spend $$$$$....

I don't need a 50 1.2L or an 85 1.2L....my 135 f2L does a fantastic job with portraits for less than half the price. In fact I'd be willing to pit it against either (in equally capable hands) and still think it could hold it's own w/no prob. BUT I don't get paid the big bucks (small ones occasionally yes) to be sure that my shots are perfect...someone else may require that edge. And more power to them.

But, yes, I think they are horribly overpriced, as well as several other L's, some of which I own....
And I don't think this is a "hate" thread...just a "what do you think?" one...

I'll be the first to admit Canon's marketing works. I would like to own some of the fast primes mentioned here, but my budget makes me try to be more practical and buy only lenses that I will use often. I'm saving for a super-tele and a 35L and I'm not sure I'll use the 35L enough to justify getting it. I like speed and reach. I am such a gearhead!

Tapeman wrote in post #2183609
I'll be the first to admit Canon's marketing works. I would like to own some of the fast primes mentioned here, but my budget makes me try to be more practical and buy only lenses that I will use often. I'm saving for a super-tele and a 35L and I'm not sure I'll use the 35L enough to justify getting it. I like speed and reach. I am such a gearhead!

I agree. This one expensive hobby. I would like to own the very best lenses available, but when I look at the prices, I'm forced to consdier my needs (vs my wants) and make the best decision that my wallet will bear. I believe that professionals want the very best, and I got paid for my photos (I usually get offered money to NOT take them) I would spend the money. I understand the point of view of those who will purchase such lenses, and I understand those who won't.

MinisterStanley wrote in post #2183699
I agree. This one expensive hobby.. ....

Compared to what ? I could buy the Cannon EOS-1DS Mark II and that 600mm f/4 lens for what a friend payed for his bass boat . He has a rod & reel that cost more than I paid for my lens. Another friend has a Harley he only rides in the summer months. Another has a race car, he blew 3 motors this year.

So compared to them, it's not that expensive of a hobby. But tell them you spent $1000 or more on a lens, and they think your crazy. Go figure !

It's only as expensive as one makes it.

CountryBoy wrote in post #2183903
Compared to what ? I could buy the Cannon EOS-1DS Mark II and that 600mm f/4 lens for what a friend payed for his bass boat . He has a rod & reel that cost more than I paid for my lens. Another friend has a Harley he only rides in the summer months. Another has a race car, he blew 3 motors this year.

So compared to them, it's not that expensive of a hobby. But tell them you spent $1000 or more on a lens, and they think your crazy. Go figure !

It's only as expensive as one makes it.

Good relativity there, Country Boy.

Petkal wrote in post #2183942
Good relativity there, Country Boy.

I agree. I used to be in audio stuff, and audio stuff is imo such a worse place to waste money then here, for me atleast. I couldn't hear the miniscular differences people "claimed" (I don't even always believe they could possibly hear what they say they could) between power cords and all that stuff.

for me...all the lenses that you use are worth it.

those that are kept in the bag, even if they are the best L lenses and the most expensive, are the ones that are NOT worth a single penny.

i know it's subjective, but thats just how i look at it.

A Lens is a lot like a drill. People will build a Picnic Table in their back yard, go out and buy a Dewalt or Makita Drill when all they really need is a Black N Decker or Noname. They buy the best because the see it, like the quality, extra features and power it gives. Do they need a Professional Drill? Not at all since they'll barely every scratch it but it sure likes nice.

For most of us a lens is no different. Do we need a L? Probably not but we spend the extra money because we like the quality, extra features and speed it gives us. Cost is all relitive. In digital photography a $1000 lens really isnt that much since you'll probably take 10,000 images with it, where as with film a $1000 lens might as well be a $10,000 lens with the amount of use it would get. It depends how much you are going to use it that the real value is based on it.

CountryBoy wrote in post #2183903
Compared to what ? I could buy the Cannon EOS-1DS Mark II and that 600mm f/4 lens for what a friend payed for his bass boat . He has a rod & reel that cost more than I paid for my lens. Another friend has a Harley he only rides in the summer months. Another has a race car, he blew 3 motors this year.

So compared to them, it's not that expensive of a hobby. But tell them you spent $1000 or more on a lens, and they think your crazy. Go figure !

It's only as expensive as one makes it.

Not to mention that you can make money with your camera gear, whereas I very much doubt that a bass boat is going to be bringing much income in.

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 don't doubt it. But 1.2 is, if my math is correct, 2 stops faster than 2.0. So, if you need it for lowlight work, then it doesn't really matter what the image quality is.

And I use my L lenses pretty much every day. So they are VERY worth it to me. At this point, I truely don't lust after many lenses with any fervor, not like I did, because what I have suits my needs so well. I'd really like a 300/2.8 or a 35/1.4, but I'm not dying for lack of them. Now, a body with faster AF, on the other hand. . . .

Some other ways to look at things.

The pictures you take with all this gear are priceless... The kids growing up. The vacations you go on. Relatives over the holidays. Assuming you use your gear for these purposes, which I think everyone does. If you shoot for money, hey, money is good too.

The gear is an investment. It's built to last (digital obsolesence notwithstanding). You'll be spending the next what, five years with the body if not longer? The lenses should last you a lifetime. I still have the A-1 and FD glass I worked every day after high school to buy, twenty years later. Oddly enough, I can get just about as much as I paid for it originally, in some cases more. Same goes for L lenses today - the resale value is fairly high, almost full price.

Photography is something that's shared. Playing golf or fishing - you do it for personal enjoyment and relaxation. Same thing with photography in many ways... But you always share the pix. Friends, family and POTN'ers alike - lots of people benefit.

Rationalization? Who knows. I'm enjoying it no matter how you look at it. Everybody needs a hobby. A creative outlet. Photography is mine. God knows I can't paint - or play a guitar.

Double Negative wrote in post #2184382
God knows I can't paint - or play a guitar.

Funny thing that: my parents don't have artistic ability to speak of, yet I've picked up photo and my brother guitar and painting.

also, I agree a great deal with your other comment-- for me, photography is a way of interfacing with the world. I'm a very shy person when around people I don't know, and photography gives me a reason for being, as it were-- why am I here? I'm taking pictures! It means I don't feel awkward not talking to people also.

CountryBoy wrote in post #2183903
Compared to what ? I could buy the Cannon EOS-1DS Mark II and that 600mm f/4 lens for what a friend payed for his bass boat . He has a rod & reel that cost more than I paid for my lens. Another friend has a Harley he only rides in the summer months. Another has a race car, he blew 3 motors this year.

So compared to them, it's not that expensive of a hobby. But tell them you spent $1000 or more on a lens, and they think your crazy. Go figure !

It's only as expensive as one makes it.

Actually, my husband made this same choice (harley or cameras) and literally, I do think we could have bought a bike outright for everything we've spent on both our kits (+computer access.)....but I guarantee we wouldn't have had the fun we do with the cameras & equip.

I think most hobbies based on machinery and/ or technology are far more expensive than photography. sure the lenses are expensive, and I find myself having to budget and save like crazy for each carefully considered purchase. But it's only 10 months since I started with a digital camera - on a film camera with prints 7 x 5 inches, any lens looks OK; blown up to 100% ( or even full-screen) on a monitor is very different.

So far this year I got my 2 L lenses that I love, and I am saving for a 35L and a 580EX and a macro lens and a 100-400. but also so far this year my car dropped its guts on the drive and I have had to have expensive repairs done to the house... - now I'm fortunate that I could afford to fix these things, and while frustrating as anything, the camera gear will just have to wait. after all, it's not as if I can't take any pictures at all.

My life is a constant struggle against the inner gear head....

well L does sytand for luxury, so..

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2184463
Funny thing that: my parents don't have artistic ability to speak of, yet I've picked up photo and my brother guitar and painting.

also, I agree a great deal with your other comment-- for me, photography is a way of interfacing with the world. I'm a very shy person when around people I don't know, and photography gives me a reason for being, as it were-- why am I here? I'm taking pictures! It means I don't feel awkward not talking to people also.

That is pretty funny!

I was an only child, so growing up I often had to entertain myself. Photography was a great way to do that - it fit right in. Wander around outside for hours taking pictures, then hit the darkroom for several more hours! Heh.