Q: The Most Over-Priced Canon EF or EF-S Lens?

As titled.

If your an amateur, I'd say personally the 50f/1.2L, however when your a paid photographer nothing is overpriced, all have their needs.

Edit: actually change that to the 50f/1.0, its more of a collectors item.

bufferbure1 wrote in post #2535847
As titled.

Why do you ask? Planning a purchase?

I think this thread could generate some heat. From every lens out there that someone thinks is overpriced, someone else will come up with a congent and well rehearsed argument as to why the lens is well worth the cost.

I'm of the opinion that if want it, need it and can afford it the price is right.

Mark

If I want it and can afford it, it's priced OK. If I can't afford it it's a rip-off.

I'm an enthusiastic amateur, a very long way off being able to make anything from my photography, but I love precision engineering, and am slowly building up a nice collection of glass. budgeting is painful....but I have had other expensive hobbies before, and personally would consider photography to be less expensive than some. try getting a pilot's license , then upgrading your ratings.....then you'll see money hemorrhaging from your savings account!

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #2535873
Why do you ask? Planning a purchase?

I think this thread could generate some heat. From every lens out there that someone thinks is overpriced, someone else will come up with a congent and well rehearsed argument as to why the lens is well worth the cost.

I'm of the opinion that if want it, need it and can afford it the price is right.

Mark

i agree.

overpriced to me means a lens isn't selling.

when someone says a lens is overpriced it usually means they want the lens but they are too cheap to buy it .

ed rader

The philosophical answer?

Any lens you don't use.

The real answer?

Same as above.

If you'd asked the same question a year ago, I'd have said the 85 f/1.2L II. Back then, you could pick up good copies of the first generation 85L for $1,000 or less, so it was hard to justify the extra price just for faster focusing.

For me it would have to be the 50/1.0 but I'm sure others will disagree.

FretNoMore wrote in post #2536001
For me it would have to be the 50/1.0 but I'm sure others will disagree.

Okay. I agree if we're going to include lenses no longer produced. If we're going that way, you might add the 200 f/1.8L. It's a great lens, but brutally expensive.

BTW, I owned a 50 f/1.0 for a while, and was completely unimpressed with it. I felt guilty selling it for $1,750, and now, they're selling for double that.

All the ones I don't own

Based on the number of disparaging remarks posted about it, some might argue that the EF-S 17-85 IS is very overpriced.

or maybe the 70-300 DO there seems to be many mixed opinions on that, but I guess its not that highly priced to begin with anyway

tekkie wrote in post #2536109
or maybe the 70-300 DO there seems to be many mixed opinions on that, but I guess its not that highly priced to begin with anyway

I love mine. Never felt it was overpriced.

400/4 DO IS..

FretNoMore wrote in post #2536001
For me it would have to be the 50/1.0 but I'm sure others will disagree.

Not me... I agree whole heartedly.

No matter what one writes, someone out there will own it and feel slighted. I will cop out by agreeing, if one is a pro or has a real need, there is no lens that isn't worth it. That said, I think the 50 mm 1.2L is priced higher than what it appears to give over the 1.4.