-
November 29th, 2017, 07:43 PM
#471
Consultant
If I had a network to buy from like JoeW's, I'd buy used, too. But I maintain that it is not worth my time to deal with craigslist bullshit to save a few hundred dollars.
-
November 30th, 2017, 11:27 AM
#472
Severed Member
Feel free to visit www.fredmiranda.com
-
November 30th, 2017, 02:08 PM
#473
Oh, I wouldn't burn usd1k. I'd put it toward school fees.
-
November 30th, 2017, 02:30 PM
#474
Consultant
Thanks! I’ll definitely look used for a fast telephoto!
-
November 30th, 2017, 06:42 PM
#475
Not to brag, but I guess I'm just buying higher end stuff than most of you guys seem to be. Again, it hasn't been a matter of "a few hundred bucks" saved getting all my stuff used, it's been several thousand. I saw a Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II pop up on craigslist for $650. That's a $1550 lens new, and you can rarely touch it for less than $950 used. I felt it was worth my time to drive about 40 minutes away in order to have a chance to save $900 on one item. I mean, if it would have turned out to be beaten up or something, oh well. I've gotten a good deal on stuff much frequently enough to be willing to take a risk like that.
-
November 30th, 2017, 07:17 PM
#476
1 series bodies and a 300/2.8L IS I or II are high-end. A 24/1.4L I or II is not quite there. I don't even consider a 5D to be high-end.
So yeah, when I buy high-end stuff (by my definition), I buy used. That stuff can take a real beating and will last for years, so it's likely to be in great condition anyway.
Last edited by Yw-slayer; November 30th, 2017 at 07:19 PM.
-
December 1st, 2017, 04:20 AM
#477
You seem to have a bizarre definition of high end, which appears to have little to no relation of the actual utility of the camera or lens in question.
The 300 2.8L is a telephoto lens. The 24mm is a wide angle lens. If I want to take a wide angle photo, it doesn't matter how many more thousands I pissed away on a 300mm lens, it's not going to take the photo I want. It's also a full two stops slower than the 24mm, so have fun trying to take low light photos with that. Yes, it has IS, but that will do nothing to help if you're taking a photo of something that's moving.
I got the 24mm because I wanted a lens that could take wide angle photos in low light. I'm sorry you don't feel that this lens is high end enough for your tastes, but it's the highest end thing you can buy for a Canon camera that will take photos at the 24mm focal length at a wide aperture.
As far as the camera, you're mostly right, however again if you just mindlessly buy the most expensive camera, you're really missing the point of why Canon even bothers to make multiple lines of cameras.
The 1D is a camera made specifically for professional sports photographers and photojournalists. Yes, it's tough as nails because Canon knows that it will be used in abusive conditions and needs to keep working. But it also has a feature set that's specifically geared towards those uses.
The 1D has a third less resolution than the 5D. Great for having large pixels on the sensor and squeezing out every last possible ounce of low light performance, but not so great if you want to crop the photos later, or make large photo prints. Probably not a problem for a photojournalist who primarily just publishes photos online or in print, maybe an issue for someone making large prints of their work.
It also lacks the in camera HDR that the 5D has. Again, fine if you're a sports photographer or photojournalist who wouldn't even use that photo if it was there, but not so great if you want a convenient way to take artistic HDR photos. The 1D's shutter is also much louder than the 5D, even in silent mode. Not a problem in most of the situations it was made to be used in, but not so great if you're taking photos in an environment where you want to be discreet.
Lastly, I'm not one to ever complain about a camera being too big or heavy, but the 1D is a massive hunk of camera, not something really designed to be easily carried around while traveling.
Last edited by Sad, little man; December 1st, 2017 at 04:22 AM.
-
December 2nd, 2017, 08:13 PM
#478
-
August 14th, 2018, 09:36 PM
#479
Consultant
I'm taking a trip to Milan, the Motor Valley, and Rome in October/November this year. I was planning on sticking with my D500+16-80mm f/2.8-40 kit lens for the whole trip, but Maria and I will be seeing Pope Francis, and I'd love to have a telephoto for that. I have the somewhat meh Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, but I was wondering if this would be a good excuse to pick up the Nikon 300mm f/4 E PF VR, which has gotten rave reviews as a truly hand-holdable 300mm prime. At $2k (there aren't many used examples for sale as this lens is very popular), do you think I can get the sort of long range photos I need with my cheap 55-300? Or is the 300 PF worth the cash?
-
August 17th, 2018, 09:41 AM
#480
If you need another excuse, it's much cheaper then a 2.8. Are you sure a 300 is going to be long enough?
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules