- Messages
- 20
- Name
- Ewan Cunningham
- Edit My Images
- Yes
WBM? Trying to make a connection, failing... :shrug:
I nearly changed my name to one with those initials when very drunk once. Long story and not for a family audience...
WBM? Trying to make a connection, failing... :shrug:
I nearly changed my name to one with those initials when very drunk once. Long story and not for a family audience...
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.
For example, Nikon have NO answer to this
F4 , 24 to 105 L
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...
Dude I didn't said you think
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.
Footy?
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...