I have taken the bait...

wbm said:
I nearly changed my name to one with those initials when very drunk once. Long story and not for a family audience...
Click to expand...

Yup, when you say not for a family audience, I am inclined to believe it ;)
 
I've just sat back and read the whole thread. Wow, chill out everyone. The "L" thing was a bit of banter.

First, I don't think I'm a much better photographer than you, Gary, but I've taken a lot more photos. That helps a lot.

As a Canon owner it's a no-brainer, if you've got the money you buy an "L" lens. Its optics will be good (at least), the build quality will be excellent, the resale value will be high. The means justify the lens. ;)

If Nikon wide-angles fitted my Canon I'd be all over them, but they don't.
 
wbm said:
I've just sat back and read the whole thread. Wow, chill out everyone. The "L" thing was a bit of banter.

First, I don't think I'm a much better photographer than you, Gary, but I've taken a lot more photos. That helps a lot.

As a Canon owner it's a no-brainer, if you've got the money you buy an "L" lens. Its optics will be good (at least), the build quality will be excellent, the resale value will be high. The means justify the lens. ;)

If Nikon wide-angles fitted my Canon I'd be all over them, but they don't.
Click to expand...


Dude I didn't said you think I said you ARE - your photos are awsome. I just got the impression that the L lens quality I suppose were not available elsewhere, so I asked. I knew you and Adam knew I posted here, so the only time I have said your crap is in all the PM's....joke :D
 
EdinburghGary said:
For example, Nikon have NO answer to this

canon_eos_lens_ef_24105mm_f4_l_is_usm_1970.jpg


F4 , 24 to 105 L
Click to expand...

Who cares? I use Canon 'L' lenses at work but can't tell any difference between my 17-40mm Canon 'L' and my 'cheap' Nikon 18-70mm kit lens. One is £140 and the other is £500 - that's a lot extra to pay for a red ring aroud the lens!

If your mate is semi-pro he'll obviously realise that it's not the kit but the way he uses it that matters.

Judging by the number of utterly gash photos taken on expensive kit that i see on this website, there are a lot of people who are kidding themselves that expensive gear will make them into a 'photographer'.

All the gear, no idea springs to mind...
 
specialman said:
Who cares? I use Canon 'L' lenses at work but can't tell any difference between my 17-40mm Canon 'L' and my 'cheap' Nikon 18-70mm kit lens. One is £140 and the other is £500 - that's a lot extra to pay for a red ring aroud the lens!

If your mate is semi-pro he'll obviously realise that it's not the kit but the way he uses it that matters.

Judging by the number of utterly gash photos taken on expensive kit that i see on this website, there are a lot of people who are kidding themselves that expensive gear will make them into a 'photographer'.

All the gear, no idea springs to mind...
Click to expand...

That's a bit harsh isn't it? Isn't photography subjective, what one person likes another will dislike, doesn't make it 'utterly gash' does it? How would you like me to call your work utterly gash?
 
EdinburghGary said:
Dude I didn't said you think
Click to expand...

Sorry, let me rephrase what I said: I do not believe that I am a better photographer than you, I do have more experience, though. That helps when you're trying to get the picture you see in your head onto a sensor or piece of film.

And I totally agree (apart from the critique) with specialman above, it's not the equipment. Most of my best pictures are with kit lenses. A lot of my "nice but for the flare" or, back in film days, "nice but for the distortion", pictures were also taken on kit lenses, but that's a different matter... Specialman's work will have bought "L" lenses, though, for the build quality. I know I could have easily got cheaper lenses with as good optics, but I'd be much less happy outdoors with them.
 
wbm said:
Sorry, let me rephrase what I said: I do not believe that I am a better photographer than you, I do have more experience, though. That helps when you're trying to get the picture you see in your head onto a sensor or piece of film.

And I totally agree (apart from the critique) with specialman above, it's not the equipment. Most of my best pictures are with kit lenses. A lot of my "nice but for the flare" or, back in film days, "nice but for the distortion", pictures were also taken on kit lenses, but that's a different matter... Specialman's work will have bought "L" lenses, though, for the build quality. I know I could have easily got cheaper lenses with as good optics, but I'd be much less happy outdoors with them.
Click to expand...


No worries. What you up to today....


Let me have a guess....


Footy? :D
 
StewartR said:
That's exactly how I feel.

Of course you can look at the price, but that's always a bit iffy. For example, last week I bought (a) an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR for £1120; and (b) an AF 80-200mm f/2.8 D ED (or it might be IF-ED) for £590. Is (a) better? Yes, very probably. Is it twice as good? Almost certainly not. Did I get a great bargain on (b)? I might have. But here's the killer ... Was (b) the "pro" version before (a) came out? How can I tell?

Yes, some people say that the gold ring denotes the "pro" range. So if they're right, when I unpack the boxes I'll find out what I've bought. But how can they be sure? Nikon don't say anything about gold rings in their marketing. And there seems to be no correlation between the existence of gold rings and any particular combination of letters in the nomenclature.

Here's a final thought. That lens I bought is an AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR. OK, "AF-S" and "G" tell me something about which cameras it's compatible with, and "VR" tells me about some important functionality. But "IF-ED" is pointless techno-geekery. Why not tell me something about the quality of the lens instead? Obviously "L" is taken, but there are a few letters left in the alphabet that they don't use yet...
Click to expand...

Stewart IF-ED isn't pointless techno-geekery at all, it's telling you that the lens has internal focusinf and Extra Dispersal glass which would tell you a whole load more than an arbitory letter be it 'L' or 'X', 'Y' or 'Z'.

You wnat to know how to tell Nikon's 'Pro' range but the question is irrelevent. What is a 'pro' lens? Can a professional photograher nbot use a 50mm f/1.8 or must he/she only use the f:1/4? Nikon don't have a 'pro' range, just a range. Each lens has pros (no pun) and cons. You buy each Nikkor on its own merits not because the manufacture decided to label it with an 'L' You ask whether the 70-200 is twice as good as the 80-200, but how can one lens be twice as good as another? It can be twice as sharp, twice as fast, twice as heavy, twices a small, but why would anyone in their right minds think of lenses in terms of one being twice as good as another. The price might be twice the price, but then you weigh up what you need against the cost and you make a value judgement.

Those who say that Canon have stolen a march over Nikon with their 'L' marketing are living in cloud cuckoo land. I can't see how anyone would ever buy into the Canon system because they have a range of lenses with an 'L' on them and if any Canon user bought an 'L' lens over a cheaper one simply because they have bought into the concept of 'L' being 'better' rather than what suited their requirements better then it's certain that the L stands for Loser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top