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

How can you realy put a price on something that makes you happy. Sometimes it is about what you want and not what you need.

Dan-o wrote in post #2185159
How can you realy put a price on something that makes you happy. Sometimes it is about what you want and not what you need.

Very good point,who needs a £4000 Rolex when a £10 watch will do the same thing?does anyone need a Rolex?NO! do people want a Rolex?

malla1962 wrote in post #2185206
Very good point,who needs a £4000 Rolex when a £10 watch will do the same thing?does anyone need a Rolex?NO! do people want a Rolex?

C'mon Malla, let us not waste your precious time on idle chatter. Son, get goin shootin them pigeons & food !

malla1962 wrote in post #2185206
Very good point,who needs a £4000 Rolex when a £10 watch will do the same thing?does anyone need a Rolex?NO! do people want a Rolex?

A Tag is sharper with better handling and reliability in the field and under water. Only poseurs would tell the time with a Rolex

Personally for me I'm happy with the 50 mm 1.8....sure 1.4 might be nice but 1.2 is just overkill.

Same thing with the 85 , I'd be happy with the 1.8..and so on.

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!

Wasn't drunk enough. Brought home the 1.8 yesterday. Will drink more heavily next time.

drookie wrote in post #2187149
Wasn't drunk enough. Brought home the 1.8 yesterday. Will drink more heavily next time.

Hmm, I resemble that remark. There should be a law against drinking while browsing B&H's web pages.

General Conversation with one of my brothers during a family get together.

Brother: Wow that is a pretty nice camera.
Me: Thanks
Brother: Whoa its pretty heavy! Why is the lens white? Is this like one of those sports lens?
Me: Yeah sort of, they sometimes use it for sports.
Brother: So how much does something like this cost?
Me: Camera or Lens?
Brother: Both
Me: The camera was originally about $2400, I got it for less then that and the lens costs in a store about $1600 but I saved also.
Brother: ARE YOU KIDDING ME! This camera costs $4000?>
Me: At one point it did I guess.
Brother: Are you nuts?
Me: Nope, I have not bought the $4000 1D MKII camera and the $5000 lens yet...

Permagrin wrote in post #2184567
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.

And i'd venture to say, a safer investment than a motorcycle. For the most part, you likely won't risk your life taking photos. Just don't chimp in the middle of the street.

grego wrote in post #2187250
And i'd venture to say, a safer investment than a motorcycle. For the most part, you likely won't risk your life taking photos. Just don't chimp in the middle of the street.

Right, with a Harley you can not take pictures of good looking girls either......while they are hugging ya tight at 70 mph.
Mwuahahahahaha

The Canon 18-55 lens is a total rip off. I paid $100 for it and it didn't even work on my 1D!!!!! BASTARDS!!!!!!!

FretNoMore wrote in post #2187162
Hmm, I resemble that remark. There should be a law against drinking while browsing B&H's web pages.

Very True!

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.

I had a related convo with a friend at work recently. He saw my 70-200, asked how much it costs (it was only the f/4 version) and then laughed that I'd consider spending that much on a lens. I pointed out my entire kit costs less than the brand new bike he said he wouldn't ride for a while because of the weather. He completely missed the point an instead started talking about how great his wifes new P&S was. Apprently she spent $300 on it and so I really was wasting my time spending all that money on one lens.

Of course they're not worth it. Even the "bargain" 50mm 1.8 lens is not worth it when you consider that all lenses cost just a few dollars to make.

If you're gonna charge 50 dollars for a lens that costs, say, 5 to produce, then there's no reason why you can't charge £2000. As mentioned above, it depends on what the market is prepared to pay. It's a business and Canon have obviously done their research when coming up with the prices and as a result the 50mm 1.2L will sell well. You have to give credit to Canon.

My 17-40 is a great lens. I use it a lot and I'll keep it for many years. It's still not worth the £430 I paid for it.