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

The 50L 1.2 as said earlier for those that do professional portraits and have constant work it wouldn't take long to make that money back plus more. So for them this lens the right tool and a smart investment.

Citizensmith wrote in post #2188014
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.

You have to admit that her $300 Samsung camera sure punches a punch with that 3x optical zoom and f3.2-6.3 lens. Never mind its ability to capture images in RAW. I think we all have been screwed by Canon! LOL

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

L L

cjm wrote in post #2190589
You have to admit that her $300 Samsung camera sure punches a punch with that 3x optical zoom and f3.2-6.3 lens. Never mind its ability to capture images in RAW. I think we all have been screwed by Canon! LOL

Yes, after using my sisters W-50, I sincerely regret spending money on a DSLR, obviously P&S rules the world.

Well you could capture a decisive moment with the good ole nifty 50 or you could capture a hoh hum moment with a 50 1.2
Guess which picture people are going to remember?

I don't hear many pros saying to their customers " I know the composition isn't great and the exposure sucks, and the lighting is awfull but just look at how sharp that shot is, and look at that contrast? "

Photography, like life is all about balance.

FretNoMore wrote in post #2187162
There should be a law against drinking while browsing B&H's web pages.

You can say that again!

Thornfield wrote in post #2191930
Well you could capture a decisive moment with the good ole nifty 50 or you could capture a hoh hum moment with a 50 1.2
Guess which picture people are going to remember?

Depends, if its anyone from this forum they would probably forget the photos entirely and just post "Hey did you see that dude with the new 50 1.2, that thing was amazing, I wonder how it would perform on my 30D?"

Petkal wrote in post #2187366
Right, with a Harley you can not take pictures of good looking girls either......while they are hugging ya tight at 70 mph.
Mwuahahahahaha

I need a Harley.

Thornfield wrote in post #2191930
Well you could capture a decisive moment with the good ole nifty 50 or you could capture a hoh hum moment with a 50 1.2
Guess which picture people are going to remember?

Anyone buying a 50mm 1.2 thinking it will take the best photos simply because it is a f1.2 and L is sadly mistaken. I've taken images with my old digital Powershots that are better then some I have taken with my DSLRs. Part of it is Ego, part of it is need and most of it has nothing to do with the camera or lens, rather the photographer himself taking the image with the right composure and especially realizing when too much blur is a bad thing that ruins the good composition they came up with.

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2189315
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.

Did you add, research and development, tooling, employees, factory, insurance, etc, etc, etc.... into the few dollars per lens calculation.

Dan-o wrote in post #2192995
Did you add, research and development, tooling, employees, factory, insurance, etc, etc, etc.... into the few dollars per lens calculation.

And divide that by the number of lenses produced...