Take your trousers down.

andephotographic said:
I could be wrong but I don't think anyone who is a proper tog owns lenses like that.
They'll either be leased or owned by an agency or publication who give their staffers the lenses to use.
The price probably could be so much lower but Canon an Nikon know that it'll mainly be companies with lots of spending power that buy glass like that and also know that whatever the price, there'll be some numpty of a rich amateur tog that'll pay it!
Click to expand...

You probably couldn't be more wrong if you tried actually. ;)

If you're talking about your average staff newspaper photographer on peanut wages then he's unlikely to own anything truth be told, but you're completely discounting thousands of self employed and highly successful wildlife and sports specialists for whom these lenses are as essential as scissors to a tailor.
 
Last edited:
Adey said:
Is it an even playing field, or am i gonna lose out to people of less talent than me, but with better equipment?

I think thats a fair question for me to ask at this stage of my potential career.
Click to expand...

LOL. The brass neck of that question! :lol:

So let me see if I've got this right then - you've just started out in photography, but you clearlry can't afford. or don't want to buy such expensive kit, and have already come to the decision that you're not limited by talent but by equipment? ;)

I have no intention of buying the lens which kicked off this thread but I have lenses and equipment which amount to far more than the cost of that lens. I was a part time pro most of my life and a full time one for 8 years before I decided to get back to being a proper photographer and doing what I've always wanted to do and pursue wildlife photography. Am I rich? Certainly not - whether you buy kit at these prices depends on whether you actually need it and where your priorities lie. I have friends who throw up their hands in horror at the price of some my kit, but they think nothing of spending the same amount and more on expensive foreign holidays ( which I don't do) and running two expensive cars when they could well manage with one.

There's no mystery about who buys these lenses Ade, it's people who are serious enough about their photography to realise that they can only progress so far without them. Whether they're pros or amateurs is pretty much immaterial. ;)
 
Last edited:
CT said:
LOL. The brass neck of that question! :lol:

So let me see if I've got this right then - you've just started out in photography, but you clearlry can't afford. or don't want to buy such expensive kit, and have already come to the decision that you're not limited by talent but by equipment? ;)
....
There's no mystery about who buys these lenses Ade, it's people who are serious enough about their photography to realise that they can only progress so far without them. Whether they're pros or amateurs is pretty much immaterial. ;)
Click to expand...

Considering Adey's reaction to buying a used 100-300 Sig f4 the other day, I suspect that you are on a losing wicket with that argument! :D
 
Not at all, im not arguing with anyone, as far as im concerned, im just learning from more experienced people than me.

And as far as the Sigma f4 thing goes, i'll no doubt be buying nice glass one day, its just after only 2 months of photography - i cant go committing serious money into it until im sure how far i want to take it. Thats the situation i think most people find themselves in when starting a new hobby/interest.

I know your post was in good humour Mark, im not being arsey or anything, i just dont want people thinking im a cynical cheapskate. :lol: (not your words i know)

Ade
 
CT said:
I was a part time pro most of my life and a full time one for 8 years before I decided to get back to being a proper photographer and doing what I've always wanted to do and pursue wildlife photography.
Click to expand...

That must be about the most pompous, stuck up thing I have read on here yet! (and that's going some)

To suggest that because someone cannot afford to spend what was it, £11k on a lens they aren't serious about their photography is - in my eyes - nothing short of pure snobbery.

You make it sound like every sports photographer that wants to make a living should go out and buy one of these lenses before they've been to their first event otherwise, they clearly aren't that bothered and are a lesser photographer than those that have the £11k lenses.

Adey, if you can't or don't want to spend a heap of money on a lens like that at first then yes, you will be at a disadvantage.
If you start out with a plastic Siggy 70-300 f5.6 lens you're not going to get as good pictures as someone with a 400 2.8 lens. Regardless of talent levels that's just a fact.
BUT you will still get good images and if you can do so consistently you're going to get noticed and start getting the work that'll pay you enough that you can start spending more on your kit.
 
andephotographic said:
That must be about the most pompous, stuck up thing I have read on here yet! (and that's going some)
Click to expand...

I don't think so Andrew, that would be you a few posts back when you decided who were 'proper' photographers and who weren't- soley on the equipment they own. "Pompous and stuck up" would be riding the pro tog hobby horse which far too many people do. I'm happy to be an amateur photographer these days and the word 'proper' was used to signify that the words amateur and professional don't signify any level of ability or competence whatsoever outside of the spin that's put on them by far too many people.

To suggest that because someone cannot afford to spend what was it, £11k on a lens they aren't serious about their photography is - in my eyes - nothing short of pure snobbery
Click to expand...
I never said that now did I? In fact, I said I had no intention whatsoever of buying that particular lens myself, the reason being I have a 500mm F4 and would rather have the extra 100mm than the extra stop of speed in most situations.
You make it sound like every sports photographer that wants to make a living should go out and buy one of these lenses before they've been to their first event otherwise, they clearly aren't that bothered and are a lesser photographer than those that have the £11k lenses.
Click to expand...
You're so outrageously twisting my words that it's laughable. What I actually said was...

There's no mystery about who buys these lenses Ade, it's people who are serious enough about their photography to realise that they can only progress so far without them. Whether they're pros or amateurs is pretty much immaterial
 
Last edited:
CT said:
There's no mystery about who buys these lenses Ade, it's people who are serious enough about their photography to realise that they can only progress so far without them. Whether they're pros or amateurs is pretty much immaterial. ;)
Click to expand...

I know that Cedric, I was slightly surprised by just how much more the new 400 was compared to the old one. And the Nikon thing has to be the most expensive 15mm known to man.........:lol:

Saying that, I have just had to have a count up for my insurance renewal, it is an eye opener on how much we actually spend on kit over the years. But what the hell, I enjoy it and it makes me a few quid....:thumbs:
 
andephotographic said:
That must be about the most pompous, stuck up thing I have read on here yet! (and that's going some)
Click to expand...

I think you have misunderstood Cedrics comment mate. He is anything but pompous or stuck up.
 
fracster said:
I know that Cedric, I was slightly surprised by just how much more the new 400 was compared to the old one. And the Nikon thing has to be the most expensive 15mm known to man.........:lol:
Click to expand...

Well the new 400mm is supposed to be a marked improvment on what was already an outstanding lens, but I do think they're having a laugh with the launch price. I've no doubt it will come down in price in due course though.

Saying that, I have just had to have a count up for my insurance renewal, it is an eye opener on how much we actually spend on kit over the years. But what the hell, I enjoy it and it makes me a few quid....:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Enjoying it is enough anyway Ade - if you make a few bob then all the better. ;)
 
SO anyway, £11,500 for the lens........ and then they have the cheek for another £500 for the hood, or does it come with one?

If that's the case, might as well find another 500 somewhere and have one of these....that will get you noticed pitchside!

(Don't fancy any hand held shots with it though!)
 
Makes me feel even poorer than usual, I thought a grand was a lot for the 400mm f/5.6

Sorry to disagree with an earlier poster, but a 400mm prime makes sense to me for things like birds, a zoom would be at the far end nearly all the time anyway
 
Lynton said:
SO anyway, £11,500 for the lens........ and then they have the cheek for another £500 for the hood, or does it come with one?

If that's the case, might as well find another 500 somewhere and have one of these....that will get you noticed pitchside!

(Don't fancy any hand held shots with it though!)
Click to expand...

LOL. They do come with the hood. £500 is is the replacement cost if you're unfortunate enough to break it or lose it. I suppose it's down to supply and demand - how many are they going to sell? I know the lens hood for my 500mm would get the gaffa tape treatment long before I thought of spending 500 quid on another! :D

There are are 3rd party fibre glass options for most of the super tele lenses and no doubt someone will make one for this lens.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Makes me feel even poorer than usual, I thought a grand was a lot for the 400mm f/5.6

Sorry to disagree with an earlier poster, but a 400mm prime makes sense to me for things like birds, a zoom would be at the far end nearly all the time anyway
Click to expand...

That is exactly right. 400mm is really the minimum for tackling bird photography seriously. Obviously, you can get results with shorter lenses in some situations, but 400mm or longer is going to get you the results in more situations.

You're right too that the 100-400mm for birds is pretty well always going to be zoomed right out,which is why my recommendation would be the prime Canon 400mm f5.6 which is sharper and lighter.
 
tijuana taxi said:
Makes me feel even poorer than usual, I thought a grand was a lot for the 400mm f/5.6

Sorry to disagree with an earlier poster, but a 400mm prime makes sense to me for things like birds, a zoom would be at the far end nearly all the time anyway
Click to expand...

Yeah i see what you mean, it makes sense when i think about it:thumbs:

So £1k for a 400 f/5.6 and £11k for the f/2.8. Is the only difference the aperture or does it have better optics and other feature too?
 
Adey said:
Yeah i see what you mean, it makes sense when i think about it:thumbs:

So £1k for a 400 f/5.6 and £11k for the f/2.8. Is the only difference the aperture or does it have better optics and other feature too?
Click to expand...

The 400mm f/2.8 has IS which the 400mm f/5.6 doesn't, but the real cost is that extra 2 apertures - grinding and polishing f/2.8 lenses at that focal length gets very expensive. (f/2.8 gets physically wider as the focal length increases)

The 400mm f/2.8 does have some very expensive flourite glass elements too which adds enormously to the cost
 
Last edited:
CT said:
There are are 3rd party fibre glass options for most of the super tele lenses and no doubt someone will make one for this lens.
Click to expand...

Any names Cedders,old bean?
 
Adey said:
Yeah i see what you mean, it makes sense when i think about it:thumbs:

So £1k for a 400 f/5.6 and £11k for the f/2.8. Is the only difference the aperture or does it have better optics and other feature too?
Click to expand...

It has IS... I expect it will be sharper and resolve a lot more detail. Thing is, until you handle a fast super telephoto lens it is hard to quanitfy how much product there is.

It's worth mentioning that the is the Canon RRP.

The current 400mm F2.8 retails at £6200 yet the RRP is £9800 so after a few months there will be some pretty significant drops in the price. The new 70-200mm F2.8 IS is about 2/3 of RRP now as well. Common trend with photo gear.

The people who spend 11.5k on that lens are being 'taxed' for their eagerness to have the best first.
 
hmmm... just received a £10 voucher from calumet... because they've been missing me apparently! so that only leaves me with £11,522.99 to find! brill!
 
fracster said:
Any names Cedders,old bean?
Click to expand...

erm no mate and I can't find 'em at the moment, but I've definitely seen 'em, I've an idea they were from the states or the far east. Just plain black plastic or fibre glass and cheap as chips compared to the Canon version, but no doubt perfectly functional.

If I can find 'em I'll post a link.
 
CT said:
erm no mate and I can't find 'em at the moment, but I've definitely seen 'em, I've an idea they were from the states or the far east. Just plain black plastic or fibre glass and cheap as chips compared to the Canon version, but no doubt perfectly functional.

If I can find 'em I'll post a link.
Click to expand...


For something that size, couldn't you buy a black plastic bucket, (must be about the same size) remove the bottom and gaffer tape it to the lens?

£5 max.

Job done.

Seemples.
 
Lynton said:
For something that size, couldn't you buy a black plastic bucket, (must be about the same size) remove the bottom and gaffer tape it to the lens?

£5 max.

Job done.

Seemples.
Click to expand...

Actually you could - or even a black plastic flower pot. :D

It'd be a bit of a pain transporting it as the hood needs to come off and be reversed on the lens to fit most long lens cases. You could sort out some sort of Velcro fastening though I'm sure.
 
Last edited:
Sigma one is £318.............:lol:.........If I ever lose mine then a plastic plant pot will be used.........:thumbs:
 
fracster said:
Sigma one is £318.............:lol:.........If I ever lose mine then a plastic plant pot will be used.........:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I can kind of understand (well no actually I can't - maybe I can appreciate it - and lets face it, they won't be doing a run of 50,000 or so unlike an 18-55 or whatever...) as to why a lens could be £10k or so or more........... so many elements, so much polishing and grinding etc etc.........

However £500 for a lens hood - which is essentially a bit of plastic (ok a big bit of plastic) with a non reflective lining and a thread on it? surely they just made 10,000 of these in a day and store them somewhere? Real unit cost to produce???????
 
Lynton said:
I can kind of understand (well no actually I can't - maybe I can appreciate it - and lets face it, they won't be doing a run of 50,000 or so unlike an 18-55 or whatever...) as to why a lens could be £10k or so or more........... so many elements, so much polishing and grinding etc etc.........

However £500 for a lens hood - which is essentially a bit of plastic (ok a big bit of plastic) with a non reflective lining and a thread on it? surely they just made 10,000 of these in a day and store them somewhere? Real unit cost to produce???????
Click to expand...

Sigma one is some sort of alloy, which makes it really reasonably priced....................:naughty:
 
The Canon ones are pretty substantial metal jobs with black matt fabric linings. Apart from loss and a major bashing, most of the problems seem to be caused by over-tightening the single securing screw -once the threads gone it's ballixed - to put it technically. :D
 
I love technical terms like that.............:lol:


Could you not drill,retap and stick an M10 bolt in there.............:suspect:
 
If it happens No 2 Son is an engineer so he'll just get it chucked at him.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top