richardsim7 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Wait... I came here looking for pr0n... switched band on us did ya? Why did you choose to go the canon way instead of upgrading to nikon? ( since you were already a nikon owner) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsim7 Posted June 4, 2011 Author Share Posted June 4, 2011 I dunno, I've always been drawn to Canon (think I went for the Nikon originally because it was cheaper, was on a tight budget) And because this lens is the best lens in the world :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sc302 Veteran Posted June 4, 2011 Veteran Share Posted June 4, 2011 That glass is freaking expensive. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastermate Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Meh! Already got one of those. :yes: Very nice, done some nice shots with it. Heavy but awesome! Got mine in May 2008. Guessing the price has gone up since then. Yep. about $300. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Well I don't think the switch was necesarry, but you weren't too invested into Nikon glass, so it probably won't matter in the long run. Make sure to throw up some photos from it soon! That glass is freaking expensive. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-24-70mm-2-8L-Standard-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WT $1500? Cheap. 70-200s are more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 And what body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remus_lupin Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 $1500? Cheap. 70-200s are more. ... just because your bolded statement is true, doesn't make your italicized statement true... But sure if you want it like that, $2500? Cheap. 200 f/2s are more. And congrats to OP!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Thats why I tend to buy 3rd party for everything except the 70-200... and I have the non-IS version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zain Adeel Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 the L optics?? do post the first shots here :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsim7 Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share Posted June 5, 2011 I will be posting shots but I've got like, 6 months backlog of shots to post from my Nikon first! I've been lazy :p (to be honest there's not that many worth posting but I really have to get everything in order AND design a new website!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazzy88ss Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 ... just because your bolded statement is true, doesn't make your italicized statement true... But sure if you want it like that, $2500? Cheap. 200 f/2s are more. For brand name f2.8 zoom glass, $1500 is on the low side. *edit* Although... now that I think about it, I think some of canon's lenses are cheaper than Nikon's equivalents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remus_lupin Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 For brand name f2.8 zoom glass, $1500 is on the low side. But that doesn't mean a $1,500 lens is a cheap lens... If by saying that you must mean in the context of "professional lenses"... but if you are looking at it that way, well then you can also say he bought the MOST expensive 24-70 f/2.8 lens he possibly could have for canon... mentioning a 70-200 doesn't really make sense either because they're meant for two different styles of photography, which is why I said a 200 f/2, to emphasize that fact, and there are cheaper f/2.8 brand name zoom lenses.. Nikons 80-200 f/2.8 for example is around $1100, but now I'm sort of going off topic (and I am aware it doesn't have VR etc. I was just matching your given criteria of brand name f/2.8 zoom haha) *edit* Although... now that I think about it, I think some of canon's lenses are cheaper than Nikon's equivalents. Definitely true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SojIrOu Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 :( Nikon lenses have become so expensive after the price hikes. But I'd agree $1500 is a "cheap" (good) price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remus_lupin Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 :( Nikon lenses have become so expensive after the price hikes. But I'd agree $1500 is a "cheap" (good) price. Exactly, if you word it like that I agree, $1500 is a GREAT (low/cheap) price for such a GREAT lens The only reason I commented is because crazzy was comparing apples to oranges, his justification for $1500 being cheap was because a 70-200 is more... which is not the right way to look at IMO The way he said it made it sound as if the lens was not as good because its cheaper than the 70-200, in response to sc302 saying it was freaking expensive I would have said something like, "true $1500 is a lot of money, but for the quality you are getting $1500 is extremely low, it's a fantastic deal" So, to re-quote crazzy For brand name f2.8 zoom glass, $1500 is on the low side. This I totally agree with, and this should have been his initial response ^ But I really was being over-specific, I should not have been so nit-picky, I am pretty sure the way I interpreted his first response was not how he meant it, and I apologize for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
articuno1au Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I'm so disappointed. I saw the title and had thoughts of all kinds of dirty jokes and responses I could make :p Then I got here and all there was to be had was a thick.. dark.. hard.. cylinder that gets longer when it sees something you like.. Perhaps my time wasn't entirely wasted.. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draconian Guppy Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Descartes Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 That glass is freaking expensive. Very nice, done some nice shots with it. Heavy but awesome! I read these and I really thought you were talking about the Coca-Cola glass :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsim7 Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share Posted June 5, 2011 I read these and I really thought you were talking about the Coca-Cola glass :laugh: Hah! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassem Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I hate you. No, seriously. Congrats though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsim7 Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 That's ok, I'd hate me too :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts