mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

First, what do you consider to be super expensive lenses? Some might feel that a $600 lens is super expensive while many others might think that is a very affordable price. For me anything over $1500 is expensive and $2200 or more super expensive. It depends on you perceptions and personal finances. Having said that though, in the end great photos are more about the photographer than the equipment. A good or great photographer can get better shots with a kit lens than a novice will get with very expensive equipment. But if you pair the expert with great gear, the results can be phenomenal.

Bobbee

But then, having the biggest gun, bomb, bat or even the expensive lens doesn't hurt either. I bet there are alot more great pictures taken with good glass that peep holes. Why kill yourself when the options are there.

pauleveritt Loc: Erie, Colorado

YES!

MOST lenses will do MOST jobs just fine. When you get into specialty situations that MOST lenses won't handle, THEN you get the expensive lens you need. If this is a ONCE A YEAR or so event, you RENT the lens.

I shoot with a crop frame Nikon D90 and own the following lenses:

35mm DX 1.8 G - $196 new
18-55 VR - $99 refurbished
55-200 VR - $99 refurbished
80-200 f2.8 - $600 used

I use the first three lenses for just about everything. The 80-200 is used to shoot action in dark theaters. The wider lenses cost six times as much. I can compensate with higher ISO settings and shutter speeds and taking two steps back.

It is like I tell people, I own golf clubs from the 1990s. Top of the line in 1991. I will give this set of clubs to Tiger Woods. I will then go down and get the absolute top of the line, custom fitted clubs for me AND I will go hire Jack Nicklaus to give me private lessons for a solid week, eight hours a day. SO, when Tiger Woods and I play, him using my old clubs and me with my custom clubs, who are you going to bet on?

Expensive lenses are just like the expense clubs. If you don't shoot well with cheap lenses, expensive lenses are NOT going to make a difference EXCEPT to create more room in your wallet where you took the money out.

That being said, the reason I OWN the 80-200 f2.8 for action in theater work is because the 55-200 VR is NOT capable of producing the desired results. I OWN the 80-200 f2.8 because it is $600 used. The 70-200 f2.8 VRI is $1400 used and the 70-200 f2.8 VRII is $1800 used. For the type of shooting I am doing, the VR feature is not used. The 70-200 focus just slightly faster than the 80-200 but I can compensate for that with technique and experience.

BUYING a super expensive lens ONLY makes sense when the type of shooting you are doing REQUIRES it AND you are going to be doing this on a fairly regular basis.

If you are a HOBBYIST and you WANT that expensive lens and you can AFFORD that expensive lens, go for it. But it is a WANT not a NEED.

Photo-Jeff

I AGREE WITH THE " GOOD" IN YOUR REPLY BUT IS GOOD ALWAYS MORE EXPENSIVE?

EXAMPLE: DXO SAYS NIKON AND CANON ARE NOT THE BEST 70-200 2.8 STABILIZED YET $1K MORE THAN SIGMA AND TAMRON EQUIVELENT. (oops sorry for the caps. Too lazy to retype)

amehta Loc: Boston

Good does not always mean more expensive. But there are different things you are paying for. Part of the $1k pays for the brand name. Another part is about build quality.

Photo-Jeff

SO if you are a working pro, beating the stuff up, it makes sense to pay 2500. for a lens that reviews say does not perform any better, or not as well as, a $1500 lens (Tamron)with a six year warranty.

Thanks for your input. it helps me decide which one to buy. I can take that extra grand and buy a nice stabilized macro. Sort of, 2 lenses for the price of one.

amehta Loc: Boston

Exactly, and exactly.

Though if you're getting a macro, consider the longer focal length, even if it doesn't have stabilization. The extra distance to get 1:1 means less spooked critters and more lighting options for everything. I had the 105mm macro, I've gotten the 200mm macro, and have no regrets (my dad now has the 105mm, he didn't want the extra weight).

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

The time to buy super expensive lenses is when you want one, or can afford one, or need one.
If you are lucky, all three of those will coincide but it is not critical to the situation.:-)

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

Unfortunately, that can not always take place. I would love to get a couple of 'G' or 'CZ' lenses but I just bought a car and one lens would equal no less than 5 loan payments. I will upgrade when I can. My first upgrade was from an A330 to an A77, then from the kit 75-300 to my current Tamron. My next lens will be either something like a 10-20 or a replacement for the 18-55...someday I'll probably get a Bigma or similar length lens. A flash is what I want next, though.

amehta Loc: Boston

Do what you can, and never apologize for making the right decision for you. :-)

Rongnongno Loc: FL

My answer to you is this:

Butt out. If your friend feels he needs it or just wants it, who are you to criticize him?

That goes for photography. A lens, expensive or not will not allow for better pictures if the user is not up to par with the lens (or guitar for that matter).

Is a better instrument able to produce a better result? Of course it is. You have answered that yourself when describing your friend as talentless (in not so many words). That was really nice too.

Price is not the question, use is.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Skill will get you just so far. Better equipment expands your capability providing you know how to use it.

No amount of skill will let you get a flash exposure at 60 ft using the built in flash. No amount of skill will allow you to fill the frame with a small bird at 30 yards using your kit lens.

Yes skill is a factor but its no substitute for equipment. I suspect that people who think skill over-rides every thing else are just trying to justify their crappy equipment.

Carl 383 Loc: Southampton UK

Learn the basics first, when composition, exposure and content are the best you can get then if you can, progress to better glass. Better equipment by itself will not make better photographs, if anything better glass without the skill will just show more detailed flaws.

Photo-Jeff

Take a look at Nissin 866i MKII flash.

More features, well built, longer warranty than Camera Brand Flashes. And legit dealers sell them for about $350 as opposed to $500+. Just be careful buying from unknown on-line sellers. Lot of gray market stuff out there with no warranty. (That goes for all photo equipment)

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

Bet your dad used a good quality plane with a sharp edge, not a cheap dull plane.