Yikes!

 

I used to shoot 2 1/4 Hassys and fixed lenses for those things were about $1K more than that lens. Friggin' film backs (things that hold just the film) were $500+ Not a cheap business to be in, and I miss those babies.

That lens you posted is great, but if you don't know what's great about them (as compared to $200 lenses of the same range) and need it, then you definitely shouldn't get it.

 

$2K lens will produce nice results. $200 telephoto will produce results like this
that's the difference

and 400mm, with 1.6 multiplier... That's a lot of mm...

 

LOL - I haven't had a chance to look into that lens yet, but if it costs $2000, I can assure you that's NOT the one I'll be buying! I do also have the Z to think about, you know. I just want something decent to shoot some wildlife shots with.

 

I've used *many* lenses... and I've never seen a $200 lens that produced results that crappy. It would be misleading to say *that* is what $200 lenses produce, and that you need to spend $2,000 to get a decent image. That looks as if it was taken with a camera phone.

 

That bird I found on some site and it was taken with ISO 1600.

There are review of all Canon lens on http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27
and I'm shure you can find samples there too.

 

You're a photographer (or at least have a photography web site) so assuming you know something about photography, why would you say, "$200 telephoto will produce results like this ... that's the difference" knowing the shot was taken at ISO 1600. You think that might have had something to do with it? The lens does have some problems, but...

I can't tell if you guys are serious or just joking. If it's just joking, then my apologies.

This is just *part of an image* (this is a crop) that was taken with a $100 lens. It's just a quick snap in the backyard (no tripod or real care in anything really), but it ain't bad for a $100 lens IMHO. I reduced the full image just for the heck of it (so you can see where it came from).

.

 

Agreed. What you may be looking at is a “gray market” seller: or “not a authorized retailer.” The camera and documentation are legitimate. But when you attempt to register the warranty, Nikon will say no.

 

Because I don't like spending more than 5 seconds on searching for the example. I was talking about cheap telephoto lenses on long end. Show me cool picture of distant object taken at 200 to 400mm with $200 lens.

 

Sample images weren't hard to find, though it did take me 20 seconds...

Lens: Tamron AF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 LD Macro
Info: 1/400s f/6.0 at 300.0mm

Sorry, couldn't find a lens that was $200, this lens goes for $170.

Click to see more images from just this $170 lens
.

 

Good then. Strange it didn't put out of business those Canon L lenses

 

Yeah, because you need to spend $1,700 to get a decent image or you'll end up with ones like the one you posted eh? That's the difference? I just hope that you didn't spend $1,700 on one lens to take the pictures on your site (any of which could have been taken with a $200 lens with similar results). Likewise, one doesn't need to spend $4,000 on an Canon EOS-1D Mark II Digital Camera when a $600 Digital Rebel could achieve the same results.

Of course, there are times when professional grade equipment and lenses are not only justified, they are essential. I didn't shoot portraits and weddings with a Hassy instead of a Pentex K-1000 for the heck of it.

When someone asks about a camera to get, I wouldn't say that they must get a $4,000 Canon EOS-1D Mark II and a $2,000 L lens or they will get <insert worst picture ever taken> these results. It's simply... untrue.

 

Yeah, if you aiming for 550x550 pictures for the web (like those mentioned from my website), you can get by with cheap kit lens. In 550x550 SOME pictures on my site would PROBABLY look quite the same if taken with some cheap kit lens. But when you print them 8x10 in the lab - the difference will be H.U.G.E.

That's why I'm saying kit lenses are usually to avoid. Any pro or semi-pro will tell you the same. There are exceptions like Canon's $80 50mm prime, but in average you'll get crapy pics with crapy lens. No shades of white, distortion, all kinds of visual defects, slow focus for zooms, small f-numbers, etc, etc.

I posted links to reviews for everybody to make their own conclusions.

And I'm not sure where you get 1D remark from? Did I mentioned it somewhere? Or you just smoking too much? I usully recommend used 10D for $500-$600.

 

Wow! I'm impressed! And rather tempted to add another lens to my collection...

Need a macro lens

 

The 1D remark was an example. I mentioned it.
Maybe I forgot to mention that started shooting when I was 7 years old (when I got my first SLR), and that I have a BFA in Photography and ran a photography business for 5 years (mainly custom black and white portraits). I've printed 20x30" black and white prints, printed color neg and chromes, etc. in the darkroom. I don't judge lenses on price, I judge them on performance.

You seemed to think that the picture you posted was the best a sub-$200 lens could produce (or at least stated "that's the difference"), and you were wrong. Any pro, semi-pro, or amateur with no photography experience or knowledge could tell you the same. That was my only point.
I wasn't looking for another lens, but I just may do the same.

P.S. B&H has this lens listed for $130.

 

I started shooting when I was 5! So I'm better than you!

 

I popped out of the womb with a camera!!

 

No Way!