>You cannot call a lens 'Low Quality' just by the price it goes for in >Japanese Auctions(?).
Believe me, the Japanese know the value of a used lens. This price relates directly to how good and how useful the lens is. The prices fetched on auction are very consistant. There are few bargains, but many good used lenses for less than new. Usually about 75-80 percent of new price. And the quantity of certain lenses offered also tells me alot. The fact that there's alot of these 24-85 lenses for sale, most of them like new, tells me many people bought them, tried them, and are selling them. What does that tell you? >And what's wrong with a 'consumer lens' ? The fact that you've owned >better lenses doesnt make this lens crap or not worth considering. >A 'begginers lens' would be more accurate term i think. What's wrong with them? Softness and distortion. However, I believe I was mistaken with the 24-85, it is in the middle category of Canon lenses. It's decent, just not a great lens. It fulfills a role as a travel lens, where you only carry one lens. That's fine for some people. >> Course, it would be nice to have a lens like that for vacations and >> stuff, but only if you don't care about quality. I'm sure it would >> make lovely 4 by 6 snaps. > >'but only if you don't care about quality' ???? That 's right, some of us care. Some of us do serious photography on vacation, with the hopes of even selling some of those 'snaps'. >You're very unfair. and probably snobb as well. " You poor guys who >have to buy cheap low quality consumer lenses for your 4x6 holiday >snaps.... as opposed to us, serious photographers. " I'm sorry, your paraphrasing does sound a bit snobbish. But you're wrong that you 'have to buy cheap low quality consumer lenses'. There are many very nice primes that you can buy used for the same price as the poor quality consumer zooms. I have a 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 which I picked up used. There's more to my definition of quality than sharpness, these lenses have speed and excellent handling. >> Although I used to be happy with consumer zooms, once you've got >some nice lenses, it seems silly to use anything less. > >It's silly when you can afford the expensive ones. But it makes >perfect sense otherwise. My point was that if you're going to the trouble of an expensive vacation, lugging the camera gear, why short change yourself? Of course, I'll always have along my 20-35 USM zoom, but I feel a wide angle zoom is a necessity, and this lens fills in the bottom end nicely. It also can be had used quite reasonably. For years I never had a 50. Now that I do, I've found a large percentage of the photos I take that I really like, are with this lens. Sure, there's 50mm available on something like a 24-85 or 28-105, but it's just not the same. So my travel kit now is the 20-35, the 50, and of course the 100-400 and 2X. The 100-300 USM lens could do nicely for a long lens if money is a problem. I guess I really don't like mid-range zooms. Not wide enough, not long enough, and generally poorer quality. It seems to me that many people can drop thousands on a vacation and say they can't afford a decent lens. I don't get it. Just make wise choices and do the best you can with what you choose. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
