Nikon Lens Updates
Jun 19, 2017 23:11:41 #
mongoose777
Loc: Frisco Texas
FiddleMaker wrote:
I would probably opt for the 200-500 only because I am not all that far from 80 years old and I would never live long enuf to wear out this lens. And I am very careful with my camera stuff. And I don't shoot every day. A 200-500 would stay idle most of the time. ~FiddleMaker
Best answer is 80-years old = cheaper 200-500 lens, dont blame you there.
But, by you saying that you will be very careful means absolutely nothing for me bc I do believe accidents do and eventually will happen.
Why do we buy insurance for our cars, houses and medical? Because sooner or later we will have to use our insurance for accidents.
I shoot 3 to 4 times a week and sometimes 50 hour weeks as Im constantly on the go as I even travel for assignments, but I am very protective and
still manage to baby my gear, but sometimes accidents do happen.
Jun 20, 2017 08:36:08 #
mongoose777 wrote:
Best answer is 80-years old = cheaper 200-500 lens... (show quote)
Many buy auto insurance because the law requires it and homeowners insurance because their mortgage companies require it and some medical insurance because they will be fined if they don't buy it.
Jun 20, 2017 15:53:09 #
mongoose777
Loc: Frisco Texas
MtnMan wrote:
Many buy auto insurance because the law requires it and homeowners insurance because their mortgage companies require it and some medical insurance because they will be fined if they don't buy it.
Ridiculous comment!!
The law only requires for you to have minimum liability, but from what I see/hear & read, there are many uninsured motorist out there. Lets say one of those uninsured idiots run into my 2012 Tundra and I only have the minimum coverage, then Im screwed. This is why I get full coverage with rental, especially living in the Dallas metroplex area.
Homeowners insurance is usually 1% deductible, but you can opt for 2% or higher. I kept it at 1% as we just had a major hail storm in our area.
The cost for replacing my roof, fence and gutters wound up costing $18k, minus $3k for my deductable, I can get everything done and still have something left over.
I also have insurance on my camera gear via Hill & Ausher, I dont need it, but I would never recover if somebody were to steal my gear.
Bottom line , it pays to have the proper coverage if you can afford it.
Jun 20, 2017 18:58:56 #
Wow....A lot of if's and maybe's. As they say down on the farm. The dog would have caught the rabbit, if it diden't stop to poop.....
Jun 20, 2017 19:45:10 #
mongoose777
Loc: Frisco Texas
saminpa2001 wrote:
Wow....A lot of if's and maybe's. As they say down on the farm. The dog would have caught the rabbit, if it diden't stop to poop.....
Ever heard of Murphy's Law?
If it can happen, it probably will..
There are those who buy protection in case "if" needed.
I guess I'll move along to other things and get back to photography,
I suggest you do the same.
Jun 20, 2017 23:48:11 #
MtnMan wrote:
Many buy auto insurance because the law requires it and homeowners insurance because their mortgage companies require it and some medical insurance because they will be fined if they don't buy it.
But not because they don't want to get wiped out in the case of an accident or act of god or a twiste of fate ?
Moongose777 is right let's move back to the topic.
Jun 22, 2017 12:01:06 #
mongoose777 wrote:
Best answer is 80-years old = cheaper 200-500 lens... (show quote)
You bring up an excellent point - about unforeseen accidents and things you don't have any control over.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.