Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- From: "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:05:03 -0800
DD wrote:
> In article <0wgBf.44503$V.37900@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest
> even number here)@cox..net> says...
>> TheDave© wrote:
>>> The current threads on best/worst lenses is interesting, and many
>>> here know my recent saga in purchasing my Canon 70-200 f2/8L IS,
>>> which brings me to what was supposed to be my next step... selling
>>> a couple of redundant lenses.
>>>
>>> A few years ago, I bought an older 100-300 f5/6L, which has
>>> fantastic optics. You know, the old push-pull model. I think some
>>> of the clearest pics I've gotten were with this lens. Now that
>>> it's pretty much redundant with the 70-200 I started looking at it
>>> to sell... and I'm having a hard time getting myself to do it, even
>>> though I know I won't use it much.
>>>
>>> I do have a Kenko 2x converter, so I can use it on the 70-200, and I
>>> plan on buying a 1.4x converter, also. The only real "reason" I can
>>> think of for keeping the 100-300 is that it's longer and lighter,
>>> and where speed isn't an issue would still be useful.
>>>
>>> My other redundency is having a 28-105 f1.35-4.5 USM Mk I (probably
>>> my favorite lens, btw) and a 28-135 f1.35-5.6 IS USM. I know I
>>> should sell one of them, and my ultimate goal is to replace them
>>> both with a new 24-105 IS sometime after I recover from buying the
>>> 70-200.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have problems parting with stuff?
>>
>> Yes.
>> But I've discovered that as priorities change, the selling of some
>> gear enables relatively painless shifts to other parts of my kit.
>> For example...I sold my 100-400 IS L a while back because I was
>> rarely carrying it (after being so thrilled with the 70-200 2.8 IS
>> L)...and I wanted an $1800 printer. There have been times where
>> I've thought I'd like to have that lens back...but there have been
>> ZERO times where I would have happily given my printer back. :) So
>> in this way...although you're often never completely free of second
>> thoughts...you have to weigh those second thoughts against your
>> satisfaction with what the sale brought in its place.
>>
>> Like you, I had both the 28-105 and the 28-135 IS.
>> I gave the former to my uncle, and have since sold the latter.
>> Neither lens is missed now that I have the 24-105 f4 IS L. Wow!
>> What a fantastic lens.
>> When you eventually get this lens, I can personally guarrantee that
>> you'll miss your other two lenses very little...or more likely...not
>> at all. :)
>>
>> I'm now prepared to sell me 24-70 2.8 L...even though there's part
>> of me that wants to retain its 2.8 ability.
>> But selling that lens will get me half-way to the laptop I sorely
>> need to buy to replace my old, dying one.
>> So which is better? -Having the lens for the occasional 2.8
>> need...or the laptop for constant use?
>> I've made up my mind on that one...
>> -Mark
>
> "Half-way" to the laptop you require? What are you planning on
> sending a space probe to mars or something that you require a laptop
> worth $2400?
They can go a HECK of a lot higher than that, bub...
:-O
If I replace my ailing laptop at all, it will be with a very small, very
light unit that is still fast enough to run the programs I need it to
run...but also with a battery run-time that lets me use it for 6 or 7 hours,
broken up over several days. That picky combination doesn't come cheap.
If it's not small, it won't fit along-side my camera carry-on stuff.
If it's not light, I'll hate carrying it, and it will get left
behind...meaning it would become a waste of money.
If it's not fast, it won't serve the purpose I have for it, which includes
video-card-intensive applications that go beyond mere in-the-field editing,
etc.. If it can't handle the workload...I wouldn't have enough use for it
to justify the purchase.
Sadly...at this point...much to my fingernail-scraping... it looks like the
front-runner is (ugh!!) Sony. And to all those waiting to rail away about
spyware, malware, etc... Save your breath. -I'm one of Sony's biggest
critics!! They have done some very stupid things, and don't have a good
reputation for tech support and service. I know...
-But nobody else offers the speed, battery life, resolution, low weight, and
video card power of the new Sony SZ:
Key to that model is its two separate video cards. One is an integrated,
basic card that is pretty low end, but that consumes very little power.
This would be plenty for photoshop review of images, browsing images, and
basic laptop use. The other is a full-blown, separate card (Nvidia 7300)
that will keep up with higher powered video applications (Like Proshow
Producer, for example...which is VERY video card intensive). This is a
great compromise--that isn't a compromise, since you normally just can't
have a blazing video card on a laptop with long run-time and light weight.
If you can find me a laptop for half the price...that can keep up with my
list... Please send me a link!
:)
-Mark
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- From: VS
- Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- From: DD
- Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- References:
- Illogical emotional attachment?
- From: TheDave©
- Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- From: MarkČ
- Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- From: DD
- Illogical emotional attachment?
- Prev by Date: Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- Next by Date: Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- Previous by thread: Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- Next by thread: Re: Illogical emotional attachment?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
