Pro Photographers: Law of Diminishing Returns (White L lenses)

another poll! mostly for Pros out there.

of the White L Lenses on the list, pick which lens you use in your profession that garners you the most money.

no reason really, just wondering ... might make you wonder yourself!

Mine isn't listed. You have nothing but white teles on the poll. If this thread is about NOTHING but white lenses, then I can say which makes me the most compared to all my other nonexistent white teles, but it doesn't make me that much compared to a certain little black L.

well, it has to be white. did i miss any?

based on the poll so far, im assuming more wedding photogs? where are the sports shooters out there? -- im guessing the vote for the 400/2.8 was a sports shooter.

No doubt about it. I call my 400 f/2.8 "The Money Maker". It gets me noticed and people know when I'm around. I get tremendous word-of-mouth advertising when fans in the stands want to know who that guy is with the big white lens. The 70-200 that I carry doesn't have near the same effect on people even though I sell a lot of photos that I have taken with it.

I'll be watching this thread closely.

I don't get the point of this:

Most wedding shooters will be using a 70-200 2.8 IS.

Most wildlife/bird photogs will be probably at the 500 or 600 f/4

Most sports shooters will be probably using a 300 2.8

Those are huge generalizations, but I don't think this poll will tell you what the best "bang for your buck" white L lens is. All it will show you is how many wedding photogs, wildlife photogs, and sports photogs vote.

All of those were generalizations, but my point is that the lens you use depends on what your doing with it.

On a sidenote, everyone will just be voting for the one they have. Maybe some people own one of all of these, but I doubt many do (own a 500 and 600 for example).

well, the point is ... if youre a pro, at what price point does the Law of Diminishing Returns apply? i understand that most of the lenses on the list kinda tell you what kind of photographer you are but dare i say ... could a photographer that has a 100-400/4-5.6 compete with someone that has the 300 or 400 2.8 given the same conditions?

Hands down, my 70-200 f4L has made me the most money. I shot softball for 3 years with it. I still use it along side my 300 f4L.

That said, I have always tried to work under the idea of maximizing profit of one lens, before dropping the coin on the next step up. Rather than just buying the big gun and trying to make it pay off..

roeddel wrote in post #5341835
well, the point is ... if youre a pro, at what price point does the Law of Diminishing Returns apply? i understand that most of the lenses on the list kinda tell you what kind of photographer you are but dare i say ... could a photographer that has a 100-400/4-5.6 compete with someone that has the 300 or 400 2.8 given the same conditions?

It depends on what you are shooting. If your shooting any low light sports, then you need the aperture. Otherwise, you don't, and could get away with the 100-400.

slappy sam wrote in post #5341947
If your shooting any low light sports

and unless youre shooting HS football or basketball, stadiums and arenas these days are usually pretty well lit, or not??

point is, is the 100-400 (on average) going to get you more money than the 300 or 400/2.8?

roeddel wrote in post #5341985
point is, is the 100-400 (on average) going to get you more money than the 300 or 400/2.8?

I have not met a serious photographer making big money with the 100-400 but it is a small sampling with room for error. I don't see many 100-400s at all. Typically a parent shooting an after school event or weekend youth soccer who might print out a few photos for team members. In all cases using a camera without a grip.

The ones I've talked to that are making money have either a Nikon or Canon with a 70-200 f/2.8 or 80-200 f/2.8, maybe a 300 f/2.8 and in the case of a Nikon, a 200 f/2. I have seen one other 400 f/2.8 at the hs level and a few big Sigmas.