Victor Nhat Nguyen
Well-known member
c100 at 2k and BCC at 800? guess we're gonna have to wait and see. Guess I should invest in lighting/lens or something that doesn't change as fast and wait for those price to become a reality.
Canon 50mm "Plastic fantastic"
- Thread starter ROCKMORE
- Start date
ROCKMORE
Veteran
One thing we know is every year you can get twice the technology at half the price. Lights and lenses drop from new to a used price then settle there. I just sold my Arri 35mm standard mount lenses and got 3 time what I paid 10 years ago. My Arri lights dropped in value from new, but I got 60% back after using them since 1998.
I was never able to get one penny back from any video camera I ever bought except my 550D which I bought for $900 and sold it 10 months later for $600 with the kit lens including an extra battery.
Invest in what you really need today and hang on to your money for want you tomorrow, because tomorrow you will most likely want something else.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I now think of cameras in terms of $$$ per year. The last 3 DSLRs I've sold have cost me between $125 and $250 per year (bought new, sold on ebay or to friends/family at ebay prices, loss divided by time I held it). They were all APS-C, a 5D2 would have cost me around $400/year.
My good vintage lenses have gone up in value since I bought them.
My good vintage lenses have gone up in value since I bought them.
Yes, that is perfect! That is exactly what I was going to post a few days ago.
The cameras are basically like film. And they are incredibly cheap compared to the film days! I used to spend $5,000 a year on film for personal projects back in 1998 to 2004, when I went to more digital aquisition. Cameras replace an "Expense", film.
If you buy good quality lenses used, the net cost of ownership is not much at all. As Samuel said, as the retail price on new lenses goes up, you can actually make money in some cases. They represent a "Capital Investment" (longer term investment.)
Sorry for a repeat on the 24-70 in this thread in the next segment below. I posted the following a few days ago on Canon Rumors. I will repost it here just for the business concepts. (FWIW, I have a degree in Fine Art Photography, but I also have an MBA and have run a business for many years. Not to be too pendantic.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Remember that for a business the real "Cost" of a lens like this is not the sticker price. It is the "Purchase Price" minus the "Residual Value."
Take the 70-200 2.8 II, for example. It is selling used for about $1,900. If you bought that at $2,300 2 years ago, your "Net Cost of Ownership" is $400, or about $200 per year.
If you are a pro doing weddings, etc. for $5,000 per wedding, that is a small "Cost of Doing Business." Definitely well worth the investment.
If you are an enthusiast, it really doesn't matter much if you use the lens now, or in the spring on vacation. Especially if you will not be doing a lot of work in the winter. Then again, you might have to wait 6 months to save $200. Really up to you ... how much will you use it, and how soon ...
Sorry for the "Capitalization." I just wanted to hightlight the business concepts and terms for those who make money at photography - it is a differnt way of thinking. They may or may not apply to how you do photography.
In terms of video shooting, I would recommend to shoot 1,-4,-2, 0 instead of 0,-4,-2, 0 (for evaluating lens sharpness) because of this reason
ROCKMORE
Veteran
You may be right, but what I've discovered from all my lens comparisons is that the difference between ultra premium lenses and standard lenses from Canon is not far if almost undetectable.
Shooters with less budget should not be afraid that that can't get amazing results from lower priced modern computer designed and manufacturer lenses.
If you have more money and want to spend it you will most likely get a better quality product. I've been wanting to swap out my Tamron 17-50 2,8 non VC for a canon 16-35mm 2.8 L for a long time. A few days a used one showed up at my camera dealer in mint condition so I did the 2 minute test against my Tamron. The results where much as i suspected. Very similar sharpness, although the Tamron had some CA in the high con B&W areas.
Everything is changing so fast with the GH3, BMC and other new technology I don't want to invest heavily in a single lens brand because as I change body technology I may have to change all my lenses to get the most out of the new cameras.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non vc @24mm Vs Canon 16-35mm 2.8 L @ 24mm
Here is a test between one lens that costs 4 times as much as the other. Can you honestly tell that much difference?
I'm glad I haven't invested heavily in canon lenses because since I shoot 95% HD video I'll be moving the the new GH-3 and will need electronics to match in the lenses.
Canon's dragging their heals improving motion picture quality while Panasonic is at least making an effort to move forward.
I was shocked at the recent test between the MK3 and the BMC. The MK3 may be a great camera, but pales in comparison to the latest developments in HD. Once the BMC gets sorted out I will surely move there and who knows what glass I will need. I still have a good collection of vintage lenses to start, and I don't think I will part with my "Plastic Fantastic" as a reminder that you don't have to sell the farm to get a sharp image.
Attachments
Last edited:
ReelFilmGeek
Well-known member
I think I found the difference with the canon lens, it has a magical product placement engine inside of it, thus making it cost 4 times as much.
henryqiu
Well-known member
Canon EF 50 f/1.8 is a VERY sharp lens, especially on a full-frame camera body. By DxO Mark, in terms of sharpness on a full-frame camera body, it outperforms virtually every comparable premiere lens on the market. However, equally for certain is that it's not as good as any premiere lens in virtually everything other than sharpness (and price). And on a crop sensor camera body like 7D, even its sharpness is not that good.
BTW, I have a Canon 50 f/1.8 II but have rarely used it. Over the time, I found it's the best lens and a perfect fit for use by young kids learning to shoot images with a DSLR, because it's so light to carry, so sharp to enjoy, and so cheap to replace.
BTW, I have a Canon 50 f/1.8 II but have rarely used it. Over the time, I found it's the best lens and a perfect fit for use by young kids learning to shoot images with a DSLR, because it's so light to carry, so sharp to enjoy, and so cheap to replace.
My own tests comparing it to about 10 other 50mm range lenses found it was not only the sharpest but had the least amount of chromatic aberration.
The version 1 has a metal mount and is likely to last a little longer. The version 2 has a plastic mount and it will break with the least amount of pressure.
Rumor has it that Canon has been thinking of updating the build quality for a version 3. The price might double. It would still be worth it.
The real problem is that focusing for video (manually) is virtually impossible for version 2, and only slightly easier for version 1.
Here is my little test:
http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10562
The version 1 has a metal mount and is likely to last a little longer. The version 2 has a plastic mount and it will break with the least amount of pressure.
Rumor has it that Canon has been thinking of updating the build quality for a version 3. The price might double. It would still be worth it.
The real problem is that focusing for video (manually) is virtually impossible for version 2, and only slightly easier for version 1.
Here is my little test:
http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=10562