Camera lens affordability

Loading thread data ...
And, of course, it took me a few seconds to comprehend the meaning of this line in the ad:
"This innovative construction helps make the lens a popular choice for rental houses."
David Erbas-White (hmm, why would I buy such an expensive lens if I'm renting a house to someone... Couldn't I just use a throwaway camera for the listing?)
Reply to
David Erbas-White
They sell "for rent lenses" (that Chris cannot afford) to makers of commercials, movies, TV, documentaries, and corporate videos).
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Excuse me. I screeched in horror over a $1350.00 LENS !! IE MORE THAN THE CAMERA
$300 is what I was "seeking"
Chris Taylor
formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
Then this one ought to slightly get your attention :)
> > $300 is what I was "seeking" > > Chris Taylor >
formatting link

> > After hearing CT screech in horror over a $300 lens I selected this one > > at random: > > > >
formatting link
>
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Then wait until you realize you missed a decimal point! It's THOUSANDs, not HUNDREDs
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
I got theived by Minolta on the repair of one of my $800 Rokkor lenses.......I'll never deal with the creeps again. A $300 lens doesn't have a lot of glass in it, and that's what they replaced it with. It was a piece of trash. Price *usually* equates to quality. Usually.
Chuck
Reply to
Chuck Rudy
I missed nothing. the one who replied to me quoted $1350 for some 400mm lens.
Not sure what your referring to.
Chris Taylor
formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
How about an 800mm f5.6? B&H is a good dealer to work with, and their disount on this lens is huge!
formatting link
(watch the line wrap)
They carry dozens of lenses in the $5,000+ range. It's not unusual at all for good glass to cost a lot more than the body that it's being attached to.
Reply to
Anonymous
I am seeing that now. is their an affordable f2.8 400mm lens availagle ?
I really need the F2.8 since I have to use 1/1000 or better shutter speed at iso 100 (anything higher is less desirable since it adds noise)
Chris Taylor
formatting link

> > They carry dozens of lenses in the $5,000+ range. It's not unusual at > all for good glass to cost a lot more than the body that it's being > attached to. > > -- > Mike KD7PVT > NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568 > NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net. >
Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
I wish! I do piggy-back astrophotography with an ancient Pentax K-1000
and would LOVE a good, affordable f2.8 400mm.
The biggest f2.8 I could afford was a 125mm, and it vignettes so badly that
I have to digitally correct the scanned images.
My 400mm is an f5.6 aftermarket cheapo that only makes a decent image at f8
and then only over about 20% of the frame. Image enhancement, again.
Paint Shop Pro; don't try cheap astrophotography without it. ;)
Reply to
Gary
Yes, there are several 'affordable' ones, but you definitely wouldn't like the amount of distortion, chromatic aberration, and lack of sharpness.
If you're looking for a *usable* 400mm/f2.8 you'd better be prepared to shell out more than the camera...much more...much closer to what your laptop cost you.
Reply to
Anonymous
This one looks pretty affordable:
formatting link
Affordable, of course, is a relative term. $2,495 for a 300mm f2.8 prime lens is a bargain, especially when you consider that a Nikon or Canon equivalent is probably going to run ~$1,000 more. (Don't even ask what a similar Leica lens will run!)
Good lenses cost real money. I worked my way through college working at a camera store, so I know of what I speak. I couldn't believe how much the quality of my photos improved when I moved from Pentax gear to Nikon due to the quality of the Nikkor glass. I also had Leica stuff for a while; the image quality was superior to the Nikon stuff, but not enough for me to justify the additional cost. I finally decided to jettison 35mm altogether, and now use a Mamiya 645 system for important stuff (like family celebrations and portraits), and a digital camera for snapshot stuff.
A suggestion: buy a cheap used 645 (Bronica, Pentax, or Mamiya) and use it with 400 ISO film; a body with 70-80mm prime lens can be had for less than $500 on eBay. It'll kick the ass of your 35mm stuff at 100 ISO, and you can go to slower film stocks when you don't need the higher shutter speed.
James
__________________________
James Duffy snipped-for-privacy@mac.com
Reply to
James Duffy
Of course, it also depends on the exact lens. If you want to talk 35mm- some Nikkor lenses are pretty crummy - others are as good as you can get, Zeiss and Leica included. In any case, good lenses cost very serious dollars, and you generally get what you pay for + "brag factor" (large for Zeiss and Leica, moderate for Nikon).
Brett
Reply to
Brett Buck
What's the 'brag factor' for my house-brand lens from Ritz cameras???
I sold an old manual camera set a couple of years back, and in going through and inventorying everything, found some 'house' lens that were completely destroyed due to outgassing of the adhesives in the lenses. Granted, I hadn't even looked at them in 10-20 years, but I was surprised nonetheless. My 'name brand' (read: Pentax manfactured) lenses were still in good shape.
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
Ahhh... now you see why people spend big bucks on good digital SLRs. A $3000 camera body looks cheap compared to a $6000 lens :)
A high quality camera body like the Canon 1D can give you excellent results at ISO 800 or even ISO 1600, which means you can shoot with a 400mm f4 or f5.6 at 1/3000+ in decent outdoor conditions.
There is no free lunch in terms of light gathering ability.
Big bucks for a large sensor in the camera body means great high ISO performance which means you can shoot outdoors at high shutter speeds without breaking the bank with $6000 lenses.
Of course, shallow depth of field at long telephoto lengths is very desirable for sports shooting which is why the pros pay for both.
Too many people get carried away with megapixel counting with digital cameras. Pixels are not all created equal. The sensor in the Canon 1D (with only 4.1 MP), is close to 5 times bigger than that found in the consumer level cameras with 5+ MP. This is why those cameras have terrible noise problems at anything greater than ISO 100 or maybe ISO 200.
Best cheap rocket photo rig? An old used film SLR, cheap telephoto - probably 100-300mm, and Fuji 800 film. Shoot at around 1/2000 or faster if possible for quick rockets.
- Marc
Klinger Photography
formatting link
Reply to
Marc Klinger
But that 3000 dollar body is just a box without the lens.
That's me. Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 with a f5.6 300mm Yashica lens. Less than a hundred bucks off Ebay.
Reply to
Kurt Kesler

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.