Paul, I read an article once that discussed this subject. It also used the cost per photo to suggest that we should look at how often we use a particular focal length lens to determine: a) Whether we should buy it, and b) Whether we should keep it. It pointed out that something like 85-percent of contest winning photographs were shot with normal lenses. I can't decide whether this is a good concept or not.
About a year ago, I traded off a 400mm f/4.5 telephoto simply because I hadn't used it in quite a few years. It was way too heavy to carry around for casual shooting and it called for carrying a heavy tripod to support it, as well. It didn't lend itself to doing wedding and portrait photography, either. ;-) In return, I got some other equipment that was more useful to me. I have only had a couple of times since then that I wished I still had the lens but, perhaps, that was a couple too many. Maybe I should have kept it. Of course, some nature photographer may be putting it to great service now. Len --- -----Original Message----- From: Paul F. Stregevsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)? By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at 50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the cheapest lens nearly always must win. Say I'm choosing a 400mm telephoto lens from three candidates. One costs $250; the second, $400, the third $2000. On a scale of 1 to 10, the $250 lens rates a 5 ($50 per point), the $400 lens, a 9 ($44.44 per point), the $2000 lens, a 10 ($200 per point). Logic, common sense, and greed would suggest that I go for the $400 lens. But I'll probably use a 400mm lens for maybe 15 shots a year. At that rate, the cost per photo will be astronomical at any price, and perhaps I should settle for a $200 specimen. Or a teleconverter, which would spare me the need to buy yet another protective filter and carry yet another big lens. It seems unfair that frequency of use must dictate the quality that it is prudent to buy, but I can't escape the math. It would certainly seem that a well-built lens is an extravagance for someone who will probably not see rugged use. So a lens that has a reputation for being optically excellent but mechanically mediocre would be a good candidate for the infrequent user. Comments? Paul Franklin Stregevsky 13 Selby Court Poolesville, Maryland 20837-2410 [EMAIL PROTECTED] H (301) 349-5243 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
