cdifoto wrote in post #8377590
Your thinking isn't so different from the cameraphone user saying "who the hell pays $2700 for a camera that doesn't even come with a lens?"
Some people just do, regardless of whether it's out of need or want.
Someone recently said that to me
I just about smacked him
The conversation went like this:
Him: "Who the hell pays $750 for a camera!"
Me: "Someone on a budget"
Him: "What do you mean a budget?!? You can get a $100 camera at wal-mart!"
Me: "That takes pictures the quality of 3 month old milk, and also has crap ergonomics....even before you get into its High ISO noise or anything...and the fact it doesnt have interchangeable lenses and possibly has plastic optics..."
Him: "Who the hell needs interchangeable lenses"
Me: "...A photographer? Someone who takes pictures and desires the best quality they can get?"
Him: "There cant be any difference, digital is digital"
So I showed him samples of what my crappy 3 year old 30D can manage and made him eat his words He now understands the value of a camera above a $100 wal-mart point and shoot [Something I do remarkably frequently when someone harps about megapixels...]
Anyways, who pays $10k for that lens? Street photographers and Leica snobs, And for the price of their 50 f/1.4 you can track down a good copy of the Canon 50mm f/1.0L its nearly as fast!
And there are uses for these incredibly fast lenses...mainly for artistic photographs, They're incredibly soft wide open obviously, But at night you can capture scenes that few others can...
Personally I'd save the cash and just get a 24mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L and 135mm f/2L...I think thats about the same amount of money as the Leica f/1.4....