I'm just going to be blunt. Nothing personal against you, but your I initial question is extremely ignorant. I am sorry. I still can't figure out how one can come to that sort of conclusion, not to mention "as a pro"?????
Do you not know that it is the person behind the camera that takes the picture? So if you see a picture that is not tack sharp, do you not automatically think that that is the user? I mean when I see a less than "tack sharp" picture or pictures posted anywhere that were taken with a dslr I just move on to the next one without ever having that thought cross my mind. Again, I apologise, but this is the most illogical question I have ever seen on a forum. (I wanted to use the word "stupidest" but don't mean to sound mean)

I think it's up to you and him to strike a deal without involving the opinions of others. If you represent a major corporation and are going to have a million hits a month on your website you should offer something like $500 or $1000 for use and will not have ownership. If your website is a personal site, or a blog, or any other casual use that you'll be paying for out of your own pocket, I think $50 for unlimited rights to use it on your site seems fair. An added bonus to sweeten the deal would be to include the photographers name as a link to his gallery of photos in small print near the photo so he gets free advertising with every hit to your website and exposure to your visitors who click his name.

There are many stock photo sites online that sell photos for anywhere from $2 to $50 and the photographer gets from 20% to 60% of the revenue depending on how many times the photo is sold. But in that case the photographer might make $1,000 to $10,000 a year from repeat sales, year after year, because he/she retains ownership of the photo and is only selling the right to use it - not selling ownership of the photo itself. Yet each sale is still a small figure.

We could, and will before this thread dies, come up with all kinds of wild figures here dependent upon the experience level, sales experiences, and egos of the various posters so just work it out with the photographer directly.

True, I was just using his numbers rather than trying to get into the corrections. As stated, the 80-400 mm lens on a 1.5 crop DX camera gives an apparent range of 120-600mm lens and you can see what you are shooting in the viewfinder vs pointing in that direction with an FX camera and hoping to enlarge and crop after the fact. I am not saying that Full Frame is bad, I am just saying that if you are driving a finishing nail you don't usually use a sledge hammer to drive it. DX cameras, like FX cameras have places in shooting. McNally, Mike Coradid, and tons of really good professionals use both as needed.

Thanks for all the input. It encouraged me to buy the 24-105 L lens. Just a follow up after shooting a freeby outdoor wedding for friends and a series of outdoor "senior pictures" for a friend's daughter. Of course this is coming someone who is very basic in my knowledge and skills. BUT, I have seen enough difference even in my shooting to justify the $700 white box price for sure. The main areas I noticed from an amateur's perspective were:

1) There is almost no photoshop touch-up needed. Even for a person addicted to photoshop; I shot and printed.

2) I have shot the f/4 in low light at ISO 4000 with excellent results after a tweak of highlight and shadows in an small area of brighter light. No noticeable noise in the shots I made. I am enjoying the depth of faces in available light without being flattened by flash.

3) The 105mm for me works as a longer lens because I can enlarge and crop with only a slight difference in sharpness and little if any graininess.

4} Manual focusing is much easier or is it just me?

Have you noticed that I am amazed and sing the praises of this "L" lens? I am spoiled by Good Glass.