On putting money into 4:3 gear ...

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Craig from Nevada
Contributing MemberPosts: 637Gear list
Like?
Re: No different than...
In reply to Great Bustard, May 18, 2013

I tend to use the hours I need to work to acquire a piece of equipment as my metric to judge costs.  A used copy of a 14-54mm requires less than a day of work.   Getting to $2k for a 14-35mm is not the same challenge as getting to $12k.

Do the marginal costs of the upgrade result in marginal benefits or for the professional, marginal revenues to justify the additional cost?  You have provided a thoughtful opinion on this question.

The market will decide this for sure for this lens and other premium long lenses such as the Sony 500mm.   For me I see the advantages FT.

BTW--getting my head wrapped around $12k is a challenge.   Sticker shock.

Great Bustard wrote:

Craig from Nevada wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

Craig from Nevada wrote:

Introducing the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x – improved performance and versatility for professional sports and wildlife photographers.

This lens was announce this week and will sell for $11,800.

Is this thing twice as good as the 90-250mm, which retails new for about one-half this price?

Used copies  of the 90-250mm can be had for a lot less.

I see the price of the Canon and ask myself, for that price will it dust, vacuum and do windows for that price and move on.

...the 14-35 / 2 vs 14-54 / 2.8.

Not quite.

Not exactly, but close:

The 200-400 / 4L IS puts twice as much light on the sensor wide open as does the 90-250 / 2.8 and allows for a more shallow DOF, just as the 14-35 / 2 puts twice as much light on the sensor wide open as the 14-54 / 2.8 and allows for a more shallow DOF.

The 200-400 / 4L IS has less range than the 90-250 / 2.8 just as the 14-35 / 2 has less range than the 14-54 / 2.8.

The 200-400 / 4L IS costs double the 90-250 / 2.8 (B&H) and the 14-35 / 2 costs [a bit less than] 4x as much as the 14-54 / 2.8.

The 200-400 / 4L IS weighs 10% more than the 90-250 / 2.8 and the 14-35 / 2 weighs twice as much as the 14-54 / 2.8.

So, true, not quite, but it certainly stands to reason that if someone would choose the 14-35 / 2 over the 14-54 / 2.8, another would choose the 200-400 / 4L IS over the 90-250 / 2.8 for pretty much the same reasons.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
skeys MOD
skeys MOD
+1New
skeys MOD
Say,New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow