Take your trousers down.

fracster

fracster

I love BRASH and BRASH loves me
Suspended / Banned
Messages
16,666
Name
Ade
Edit My Images
Yes
Whilst we roger you roughly from behind.........:eek:

New Canon 400 F2.8, a snip at £11,532.99, but you get free delivery.so that is a bargain then...........:D

And before Nikon users get that warm feeling of "won`t happen to us"....:p.....losing 15mm would cost you,yes YOU a mere £1409.01 pence......:eek:


I received my usual Calumet mag today and was thumbing through whilst in the bathroom.....;).........Ridiculous prices.
 
lol...

That 35mm is wa-aaaaay too chunky and overpriced IMO...I'll stick to my 35mm f/2 ta v much...
 
Arkady said:
lol...

That 35mm is wa-aaaaay too chunky and overpriced IMO...I'll stick to my 35mm f/2 ta v much...
Click to expand...

Overpriced?...........It is a stonewall, full on peetake...........:lol:
 
fracster said:
Whilst we roger you roughly from behind.........:eek:

New Canon 400 F2.8, a snip at £11,532.99, but you get free delivery.so that is a bargain then...........:D

And before Nikon users get that warm feeling of "won`t happen to us"....:p.....losing 15mm would cost you,yes YOU a mere £1409.01 pence......:eek:


I received my usual Calumet mag today and was thumbing through whilst in the bathroom.....;).........Ridiculous prices.
Click to expand...

That's for the Mk2 version, which whilst I agree is way way more than I would even contemplate has great technical advances (as told by Canon) not least of which is a huge weight loss and supposedly much sharper pictures. As the clamour for increased Mp is still with us I suppose lenses are showing their age and struggling to keep up?
Either that or the Paps are putting in "weight strain" claims against Canon US and if the price doesnt deter them then the profits will pay the legal costs.

Matt
 
How much was the old Canon 400 F2.8?....£6200 is the nearest I can see,so £5g`s more for the new lens.It must be very good.Or a right royal peetake.........:)
 
:lol::lol:

But really does any serious photographer person buy that? Its a rich boys toy surely?

I mean you cant even zoom, does that mean you can only take a picture when your subject is the right distance away? Which will be hardly ever considering you cant move the damn thing around:shrug:

Seriously, i dont understand the point of telephoto primes, not bloomin' 400mm ones anyway.

I'd rather take a sigma 700-300 apo to a footy match if im honest.

Am i being silly?
 
Adey said:
:lol::lol:

But really does any serious photographer person buy that? Its a rich boys toy surely?

I mean you cant even zoom, does that mean you can only take a picture when your subject is the right distance away? Which will be hardly ever considering you cant move the damn thing around:shrug:

Seriously, i dont understand the point of telephoto primes, not bloomin' 400mm ones anyway.

I'd rather take a sigma 700-300 apo to a footy match if im honest.

Am i being silly?
Click to expand...

yes
 
Adey said:
:lol::lol:

But really does any serious photographer person buy that? Its a rich boys toy surely?

I mean you cant even zoom, does that mean you can only take a picture when your subject is the right distance away? Which will be hardly ever considering you cant move the damn thing around:shrug:

Seriously, i dont understand the point of telephoto primes, not bloomin' 400mm ones anyway.

I'd rather take a sigma 700-300 apo to a footy match if im honest.

Am i being silly?
Click to expand...

That's one hell of a lens you've got there ;) :lol:

You're joking though about the primes, right? Almost every pro sports photographer uses one! When they make a sharp something-400mm f/2.8 zoom lens, then perhaps some will convert, but there's nothing like that at the moment!
 
I wasnt joking about the primes, but then i've only had a dslr for 2 months so im not really in a position to know otherwise i suppose.

But whats the point of spending so much on a single focal length? It just limits your options, unless you plan on doing lots of cropping anyway, so whats the point in the sharpness then.

Wait, i know.....doh! im forgeting something, all the pros have like 3 cameras on the go dont they, each with a lens that costs thousands also.

So, how successful a photographer does someone have to be in order to finance a lens like this, just from they're photography income?

Maybe 10 people in the whole planet?

Whats the point in me learning how to shoot football matches, i aint ever gonna be able to afford L lens teles, so im not ever gonna be a pro am i?

Rich boys game methinky.

Ah, who cares anyway, i'll sell my A4s for a tenner untill i can afford a 70-300mm IS USM

:lol:

My rantings should be interpreted as an invitation to enlighten me, not as a sign of me being bitter in any way.:D
 
Last edited:
if you're doing it for a living and as a 'business' then surely an £11k outlay isn't really a "huge" amount - I work in IT and even the very smallest of firms will spend that amount on IT alone, then add building costs blah blah and it far exceeds that, it just depends if you can make the money back - if a lens costs £10k and you need it and it will bring you significant income then I don't see it being a problem - if it really is that important a loan will do it and you'd pay off like £200 a month over 5 years or whatever - a plumber needs a van to work and would more than likely take a loan for that but in doing so he has transport to earn money - being a plumber isn't a rich boys game and I don't see how being a sports tog is, if you're good enough you will get paid and I'm sure there are far more people than 10 on the planet :cuckoo:.
 
fracster said:
Whilst we roger you roughly from behind.........:eek:

New Canon 400 F2.8, a snip at £11,532.99, but you get free delivery.so that is a bargain then...........:D

And before Nikon users get that warm feeling of "won`t happen to us"....:p.....losing 15mm would cost you,yes YOU a mere £1409.01 pence......:eek:


I received my usual Calumet mag today and was thumbing through whilst in the bathroom.....;).........Ridiculous prices.
Click to expand...



DO they charge you an extra £500 for one of these or do they rather generously put one in the box with the lens?
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
if you're doing it for a living and as a 'business' then surely an £11k outlay isn't really a "huge" amount - I work in IT and even the very smallest of firms will spend that amount on IT alone, then add building costs blah blah and it far exceeds that, it just depends if you can make the money back - if a lens costs £10k and you need it and it will bring you significant income then I don't see it being a problem - if it really is that important a loan will do it and you'd pay off like £200 a month over 5 years or whatever - a plumber needs a van to work and would more than likely take a loan for that but in doing so he has transport to earn money - being a plumber isn't a rich boys game and I don't see how being a sports tog is, if you're good enough you will get paid and I'm sure there are far more people than 10 on the planet :cuckoo:.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you can always guarantee that people will need they're plumbing fixed.

The impression i've got from the pros on this board, is that its extremely hard to make it as a pro sports tog these days, and even harder to make decent money out of it. There is a thread running at the money where people talk about 14 hour days and not making money, but doing it for the fun of it anyway.

Theres no need for a :cuckoo: either, i made it reasonably clear (i think) that im new to this game still getting my head around things. I appreciate you putting me straight though.;)

If ability and talent are such big factors, then i find that quite encouraging.

:thumbs:
 
What the hell are you meant to do with the 52mm filter Warehouse Express recommend to go with it?

And re. the £1700 35mm prime, as slight justification for the price, it is meant to be a press lens so you could probably hammer nails in with the front element without worry of impairing IQ.
 
andephotographic said:
What the hell are you meant to do with the 52mm filter Warehouse Express recommend to go with it?
Click to expand...

1287672391.jpg


=

http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index.php?target=products&product_id=111716

;)
 
I considered that, but isn't it usually slide in filters that go on the bums of lenses?
Would't you be better served by a protective UV filter on the front of it anyway?
 
andephotographic said:
I considered that, but isn't it usually slide in filters that go on the bums of lenses?
Would't you be better served by a protective UV filter on the front of it anyway?
Click to expand...

umm don't know tbh, from the jacobs link it looks like the holder takes screw in 52mm filters so any screw filter will work.
And the supposed use of a UV filter is to reduce haziness created by UV light :shrug:
 
timmygcsc2308 said:
umm don't know tbh, from the jacobs link it looks like the holder takes screw in 52mm filters so any screw filter will work.
And the supposed use of a UV filter is to reduce haziness created by UV light :shrug:
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people actually know the supposed use these days though?

They've been promoted as lens protectors for so long I think that's taken over as the primary function.
 
Islander said:
I wonder how many people actually know the supposed use these days though?

They've been promoted as lens protectors for so long I think that's taken over as the primary function.
Click to expand...

True but given the choice betweena clear protective filter and a skylight or UV filter I'd go with the skylight/UV as it'll do two jobs at once.
 
thats not street price though and the 400 f2.8 is a serious bit of glass.

fracster said:
Whilst we roger you roughly from behind.........:eek:

New Canon 400 F2.8, a snip at £11,532.99, but you get free delivery.so that is a bargain then...........:D

And before Nikon users get that warm feeling of "won`t happen to us"....:p.....losing 15mm would cost you,yes YOU a mere £1409.01 pence......:eek:


I received my usual Calumet mag today and was thumbing through whilst in the bathroom.....;).........Ridiculous prices.
Click to expand...
 
Many top news publications also have in house sport photographers and you can expect the company to pay for and own the lens. One mate of mine had the option of buying some of the kit from the newspaper after a while.
 
chris321 said:
When they make a sharp something-400mm f/2.8 zoom lens, then perhaps some will convert, but there's nothing like that at the moment!
Click to expand...

What about the Nikon 200-400 f4? If you have a camera body with reasonable high ISO performance (such as the D3 or D3s) then losing a stop of light does not matter.
 
scottcampbell said:
What about the Nikon 200-400 f4?
Click to expand...

It won't fit on a 1D?! :D


scottcampbell said:
If you have a camera body with reasonable high ISO performance (such as the D3 or D3s) then losing a stop of light does not matter.
Click to expand...

For most applications, you're quite right, but if you try and tell some of the sports togs on here that when they're shooting a floodlit match, they'll probably tell you differently (when ISO is set to max, the lens is wide open, and shutter speed still isn't really high enough)! If f/4 was sufficient afterall, then no-one would buy the f/2.8 primes! :)


Edit: But alas, we're taking the thread off-topic. To move it back on track, I'll put myself out there and state that I for one won't be dropping 11 grand on this new lens, no matter how pretty and lightweight it is! :lol:
 
Last edited:
PAH - you modern day wuss Frac - 30 or so years ago Jessops used to have a catalogue with a Leica lens for something around £62,000 - about 5x what my parent's house cost at that time

£11,000 barely gets you a car these days

WUSS - go spend your pennies and get a decent Dipper shot :lol::lol::lol:

DD
 
Nah, i`m gonna cover your next wedding with the 3-800 siggy from the bushes............;)
 
So, how successful a photographer does someone have to be in order to finance a lens like this, just from they're photography income?

Maybe 10 people in the whole planet?
Click to expand...

ever looked around the edge of a football match? most prem league games, there will be 10 400 2.8's around that one pitch...
 
itsdavedotnet said:
ever looked around the edge of a football match? most prem league games, there will be 10 400 2.8's around that one pitch...
Click to expand...



I didnt say only 10 people own that lens, i asked how many people could finance that sort of lens from their photography income alone.

Im still confused though, if someone could help me out i'd really appreciate it.

There was a thread i saw the other day, where there was a lot of people saying that they dont make very good money from doing sport, and that they had to supplement their income through other photography, or even non tog work. These are people who as far as i remember shoot FA cup, Prem league, internationals etc, and have photos regularly published in newspapers and magazines.

So how do they finance such expensive equipment? Saving up for years and years?, business loans?, bank loans? or just using the money they earn from togging (i.e being very successful)?

I ask because im new to all this, and just want to know where i stand and where the goal posts are (pardon my pun).

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.
 
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!
 
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...

Well done.................:thumbs:
 
andephotographic said:
I considered that, but isn't it usually slide in filters that go on the bums of lenses?
Would't you be better served by a protective UV filter on the front of it anyway?
Click to expand...

The problem is no-one makes front-fitting filters in these huge sizes and the price would be prohibitive if they did. None of the Canon super tele lenses from 300mm upwards, actually have a front element in the true sense anyway - they all have a piece of flat optical glass which is easily replaced, and while it wont be cheap, it would probably be no more than a decent filter of that size would cost. I don't know, but I'd guess Nikon lenses in those sizes are the same.

These lenses rely on really large deep lens hoods for protection - both from knocks and from the elements.
 
grum said:
I'm way more shocked by the price of the bloody lens hood!!! £500 for a lens hood!!! How can they possibly justify that??!
Click to expand...

There are cheaper carbon fibre options out there. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top