Paul F. Stregevsky suggested:
By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative
definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the
cheapest lens nearly always must win.
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 5:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lens value: a workable definition (dollar per photograph)?
On 2 Jan 2002 at 8:11, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
50 percent of the price is a better
Paul,
I read an article once that discussed this subject. It also used the cost
per photo to suggest that we should look at how often we use a particular
focal length lens to determine: a) Whether we should buy it, and b) Whether
we should keep it. It pointed out that something like 85-percent
Paul,
How much is a lens worth if it's the one you needed to get the shot you
want? Is Quality-per-use to be discounted? If each time you use the lens
you are disappointed with its results, the lens may have a negative worth.
OTOH, I would agree that it makes more sense for most of us to buy
Cory wrote:
How much is a lens worth if it's the one you needed to get the shot you
want? Is Quality-per-use to be discounted? If each time you use the lens
you are disappointed with its results, the lens may have a negative worth.
OTOH, I would agree that it makes more sense for most of us
Sounds silly to me.
It looks to me as though you are failing to include how important that 20%
difference might be to the individual doing the valuation. For example, 80%
of my minimum daily oxygen intake, regardless of how cheaply supplied, is
not enough. I'm willing to fork over whatever it
I suppose this is where certain other brands have an advantage.
In photo stores, you can rent those lenses (and cameras) for a day
or a week, lenses you'd otherwise never use due to their high
prices.
But no Pentex for rent.
I recently visited a store, not only did they not have any Pentax to
On 2 Jan 2002 at 8:11, Paul F. Stregevsky wrote:
By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
50 percent of the price is a better value. I propose an alternative
definition of value: cost per photograph taken. By this definition, the
cheapest lens nearly
My thanks to Shel and others who have pointed out the limitations of my assumption. To
my surprise and delight, you've given me reason to go for something a cut above
Quantaray. A memorable picture is worth more than the paper it's printed on or the
cost it took to print it.
Paul Stregevsky
On Wed, 02 Jan 2002 08:11:02 -0500, you wrote:
By conventional thinking, a lens that is 80 percent as good as another at
50 percent of the price is a better value.
No, a really good lens is the least expensive lens, even if it costs
twice as much. You will be more likely to get the shot
Paul...
You're making a pretty solid argument for a high-end zoom such as
Sigma's 70-300 f 4 IF APO ( BH $ 800.00) which has impressive
sharpness and color fidelity from 70 to about 200mmnot as pure
as all those primes but hey price per frame is pocket change
11 matches
Mail list logo
