| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/11/2005 01:30:11 PM · #1 |
Here's an argument worth discussing. Do you get what you pay for?
When you buy the 24-70L instead of the Tamron 28-75 for three times the price, are you getting a three times better lens? I believe you do! Optically, they are nearly identical. Besides the 4 extra wide millimeters, you're paying for the incredible build, the lightning fast and silent focusing, but mostly, I think you pay for the indisputable greatness of a tried and true professional lens with CanonĂ¢€™s name and red line on it.
Do you get what you pay for? |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 01:38:15 PM · #2 |
| My answer would be 'I think so.' My only frame of reference is the 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma vs 7-200mm f/2.8 VR Nikon. The Nikon is twice the price, but in my opinion is over twice as good. Faster AF, better bokeh, sharper images, better color reproduction all seem to weigh in favor of the more expensive lens, at least that was my experience. |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 01:38:20 PM · #3 |
Well, I bought the Canon 24-70, so obviously I think so. Really, the crux of the matter, IMO, is that If I so choose, I can sell the lens for a large portion of the new cost. In the meantime, I have all the benefits of the build and performance of the Canon L glass.
The additional 4mm is a big thing, as is the performance at f/2.8 and the USM/full-time manual focusing. Also important is the forward compatibility, with no concerns of the lens needing "rechipping." |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 01:39:53 PM · #4 |
Like everything else, I think the mark-up for Canon products is too high. Is the canon you mentioned worth $1100.00 ... I don't think it is, but I also know I will eventually own that lens (knowing I've been overcharged).
It's a difficult question, there's no "right" answer. |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 01:54:19 PM · #5 |
How many shots are you going to take with it? The lens does get cheaper by the shot.
I bought my 20d and 24-70 in February. Since then, they've been registering 5,000 shots. The vast majority of these are "bad" shots, but that's my fault. But the lens is effectively costing me 24 cents per shot at this moment and it's going to get "cheaper" as I do see myself using the lens for a few years to come.
At 10,000 shots, which I anticipate reaching before the year's end and before the lens is a year old in my possession, the effective cost would be 12 cents per frame.
Digital revolutionized many things, and that includes lens "value," in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2005 02:00:43 PM · #6 |
| One thing that was touched on above. Many of the more expensive lenses have excellent resale value. Compare the price of a lens at B&H and on Ebay. My experience is that nicer lenses have similar prices on both venues. Therefore, if you purchase a nice lense and it does not appreciate, you can often sell it later if need be. Then the 'price' of the lense is on the difference in what you bought it for vs. sold if for. |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 02:02:44 PM · #7 |
| I'll take the minority view, thankyouverymuch. The Canon lens is worth more, but not THAT much more IMO. For $1100, I can buy the Tamron 28-75 with similar image quality, a Canon 70-200 f/4L, a Canon 50mm f/1.8, and a decent tripod. The Canon 24-70 alone is not worth more than that to me. |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 02:03:11 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Here's an argument worth discussing. Do you get what you pay for?
When you buy the 24-70L instead of the Tamron 28-75 for three times the price, are you getting a three times better lens? I believe you do! Optically, they are nearly identical. Besides the 4 extra wide millimeters, you're paying for the incredible build, the lightning fast and silent focusing, but mostly, I think you pay for the indisputable greatness of a tried and true professional lens with CanonĂ¢€™s name and red line on it.
Do you get what you pay for? |
Look at it from a cost benefit perspective. Could you sell images from it for three times the price, or will you sell three times as many images?
|
|
|
|
05/11/2005 02:09:59 PM · #9 |
I don't think you can base the decision on being able to sell a print taken with pro-glass for for 3x the cost of one taken with consumer glass. The bottom line is that most art consumers aren't interested in the lens you took it with. But most importantly, a print's value is more based on the subject. IE, a photo of bigfoot taken with a 2mp point and shoot would sell for much more than a beautiful landscape taken with all professional medium format gear.
If you look at Nikon or Canon glass as a whole against say Tamron, or Sigma, you will always find places where the 3rd party glass may be superior to a specific 1st party lens. For example, Nikon's 70-300G is blown away by many 3rd party lenses because it's junk.
I think that if you are serious about photography, and shoot in all conditions, then the extra cost of the 1st party glass is worth it. If you compare the play in my consumer lenses to the metal weather sealed construction of my 200mm Micro-Nikkor it is apparent which one is more likely to survive prolonged use in rain or heavy snow.
If you are shooting in the studio, and never bang up your glass, or if you never push the enlargement envelope because you only view on-screen, then it probably makes little difference what you shoot. Most dSLRs today can make a gorgeous 6x9 with almost any lens. Move that to a 300dpi 8x12 or 16x24, then the glass becomes much more important.
Again, there's always an exception, but overall I believe investing on pro glass is a better investment in the long run.
|
|
|
|
05/11/2005 02:18:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Could you sell images from it for three times the price, or will you sell three times as many images? |
Or rather, could you take three times more images worth selling? Or will you use this lens three times longer?
I would. |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 02:27:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Again, there's always an exception, but overall I believe investing on pro glass is a better investment in the long run. |
If you're a pro, yeah...if you're a hobbyist like me, who will likely never sell a print (or even PRINT a print) larger than 8x10 or 8x12, there's really no point. My 2 cents...or 6 cents if you would like to pay three times what it's worth. ;o)
|
|
|
|
05/11/2005 03:29:00 PM · #12 |
I recently spent almost $1800 on the 70-200L IS. Tax-time was good to us this year otherwise I would never have done that. It's a superb lens and I'm really happy with it. I'm like many and live paycheck to paycheck, and if I didn't have a nice little chunk come back to me I definitely couldn't have done it. But I'm glad that I did. Now I have to wait until next year for the 24-70L.
I do think that Canon has the professional edge of their market cornered, and knows that the pros are willing to pay almost anything for the best stuff. But in today's markets, most professional equipment is like that whether it's tools or kitchen equipment. |
|
|
|
05/11/2005 04:42:37 PM · #13 |
Resale value I think is not a very good argument because so you are not making any money of off the invesyment you made. So if I overbuy a lens for $700 more than a comparable lens just so I'll get that back if I ever sell it, is like overpaying your taxes just to get a refund at the end of the year.
I am in the scalvert boat and due to his recommendation I bought the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and love it. I also have the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS USM and love it as well. Would I buy another L lens? Yes. Would I buy another Tamron lens? If it was the same quality as the 28-75 then absolutely.
What gets me is that people think it is crap if there is not a red ring without even seeing one image or reading one comparison.
Test image from Tamron 28-75 @ f/8:
Test image from Canon 18-55 @ f/8:
OK. Not that fair of a test.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 12:07:20 AM EST.
