It's not the camera, it's the person behind the camera!
Actually, what I mount on my camera, why you care?
Similarly, I wouldn't really give two hoots if your lens front element was made out of an 82mm-diameter polished diamond, or a toilet roll with green cellophane paper scotched-taped to the front.
Take it easy people. Take your camera out. Take more pictures.
Arguments like this serve no purpose and generally lead no where...
Just a side note: I realised that I have spent close to $120K on vacations over the last 5 years...That should probably be sufficient for me to buy the Canon 1DsMKIII and all the Canon L Lenses... But right now I only have a 2nd hand Canon 40D and a second hand Tamron 17-50f2.8...
i heard that the paint is also well known for peeling off, yaikks
buddy, your argument is very well presented.
and trust me, if i was a pro. i wouldnt mind to spend much money for nikon or canon. the pics i took, will generate income for me, so always go for the best : )
but i have to say that i REALLY like the way you present your point .
So uh.. Case closed? Lol.
So, in summary:
Why original brand compared to 3rd party?
- Image quality, AF and built
- Assurance that it will work
- Much lower depreciation rate: General trend is that the Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS depreciates about 5-10% for every cosmetic grade lowering (CS guidelines), while lenses like the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 will depreciate about twice that rate, about 10-20%, especially since Sigma has their peeling issue.
Two words: personal choice.
TS, maybe it is better to close this thread, if not, it will be going nowhere.
Last edited by synapseman; 21st October 2008 at 12:22 AM.
how bad is the resale value of third party lens in general? by how much lower they depreciate? compared to main party?
like twice more?
in USA, i heard that you can actually buy nikon or canon lens and use it for many months and can sell it back for ALMOST THE SAME PRICE that you paid for it. AWESOME, EH.
In the US, they have 30 day return policy. So basically you can 'rent' a lens for 30 days and all you'd need to do is pay for the shipping and give some crappy excuse like "the lens isn't performing to my expectations, please give me a refund".
I already gave you the depreciation approximation for both.
My personal opinion is that when you buy a lens/camera/flash etc, you shouldn't even be considering depreciation. A Camera/lens/flash etc is to be used for the medium to long term which in today's photography terms is 1 year +. After taking countless photos (good or bad) with the lens and then selling it to fund for a better lens, will you actually be concerned about how much your lens has depreciated?
In terms of buying lenses, for me at least the most important criterias are price and quality (build, optic, AF accuracy). For any lens that you buy, there will definately be a price/quality trade off. You just need to deicde whether it is worth it or not to buy the more expensive lens, period.
Anyway, on the issue of depreciation, a 10% depreciation doesn't mean anything unless you take the cost of the lens into consideration. Absolute depreciation would be a better guage to use in this case since TS is probably more worried about losing more $$ when he sells his lens.
E.g. 10% depreciation on Canon 17-55f2.78 lens is $130 while 10% depreciation on the Tamron 15-50f2.8 is only $60.
But like the others mentioned, going out to shoot is certainly the best way to improve your pictures, whether you used a 3rd party lens or not. I have a couple of 3rd party lenses too and each of them have their use.
Last edited by lsisaxon; 21st October 2008 at 10:33 AM.
i support opposition party