Reply To: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page…

[warrenjrphotography]

Quote –

http://i.imgur.com/sVGfYOM.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/qOtU72E.jpg

Left comparison is a less than amazing sigma 70-200 @f2.8 in first and @f5.6 in the second. On the right is a 55-250 @f5.6 in both. All at 70mm. Sigmas are known to render colours a bit warmer than canons but that would just be down to sorting the balance out in post from a grey card which I didn’t do here but I set the colour temp and colour balance to the same for comparisons sake. All three shots are straight out of camera apart from a small (1/4 stop) increase in exposure on the canon as it isn’t as transmissive at the same aperture. There is also a softbox on the right with a speedlight in it. End Quote

 

I looked at both comparison photos. I don’t see a significant difference between the $1,000 Sigma and the Canon 55-250.  In both photos I could not tell which lens is which.

Quote –

I’ll have to expand on this a little later, but I really think the backbiting for recommending professional grade equipment for a professional service is REALLY unprofessional on your part Warren. It’s one thing to defend your position but to say that no one could tell the difference between an L and your telephoto currently is outrageous. A customer without the knowledge of equipment? Sure, they won’t necessarily know the difference (or even care!) but another photographer would definitely see the difference. Especially if comparing a scene shot with both side by side.

I don’t care what equipment you use. Complaining about the cost of the high end, professional level equipment really annoys me and when people are like “I just can’t afford ______”. Guess what then, you can’t afford to invest in your business and that really puts a doubt in a client’s mind. Even if the images are great, it catches someone off guard and gives a poor impression to show up to a paid shoot with consumer level equipment. I know, I’ve done it…

I’m not trying to say you’re bad or you can’t continue doing what you’re doing… I just advise you to think about the impression you make. People are shallow, it’s not something they necessarily control at first. You can change their mind with great images, but it’s just one of those things to consider.

 

Also, don’t ever tell me to compare my 70-200 to a 55-250. I have both, and they are worlds different in quality. (<- that’s my angry moment)

End Quote

The 55-250 is professional enough for me. It’s been dropped, banged, taken a true beating and still holds up just fine.

Anyone that says that it is not “sharp enough” has not used it extensively.

Why would I want to go out of my way to spend $2,000 on a lens where my 55-250 is already TOO SHARP for my needs. The amount of PP that I need to do to remove blemishes, very tine spots, and reduce the sharpness is insane to the point where I’m considering getting some light cloth to cover my lens to make the lens a little bit less sharp when photographing women.

Also, yes I do realize that the L lenses are going to be better lenses but really you’re getting into the law of diminishing returns once you go past the kit lenses.

Case in point, the $2,100 Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS USM II is not going to be 21X times better than the 55-250 considering build quality, image quality, and IS/USM.

I know photographers with 1DX’s and 5Dmkii’s and L prime lenses that take crap photos…..I’d say it’s less about the gear that you use and more about lighting….after all photography is painting with light. I spend/have spent enough money on quality lighting and editing software and those two are going to be more important than any lens or camera body that I buy.

Like I said, there are pros shooting with cheap body’s and kit lenses it’s the same thing with a lot of musicians. Why should I spend $2,100 on a lens when my current equipment does everything that I need it to do? It makes no sense whatsoever.

You can consider the 55-250 to be “unprofessional” all you want but in reality I’d rather put my money into marketing and eventually when I feel like it upgrade to FF and L lenses which I’m suspecting will still follow the trend of diminishing returns as I am friends with guys that shoot with 5Dmkii’s and L lenses with good lighting and it all comes down to lighting, technique, and PP not if you used a 55-250 or 70-200 to get a photo.

Also, would you consider the Tamron 17-50 2.8 & Sigma 17-50 a long with the Sigma/Tamron 70-200’s to be unprofessional as well since they cost less than the Canon equivalent and are not encased in a metal body?

Your last point was about impression. Well I know for a fact that most clients do not care about what kind of lens that you use they are much more impressed with the lighting equipment that I bring with me as I get comments on that all of the time that I go out shooting on location.

They care about how you look, how good your website looks (I admit my website still has a lot of work that needs to be done, I need to get a good template and fix a few things), and your personality not your gear. Having big lenses like the 70-200  F2.8 IS II might even make some clients nervous at first hence why on BHPhoto you can buy stickers to make your lenses look less intimidating and a few pros that I know off of the top of my hand use those stickers for that reason.

A Canon kit 55-250 or 18-55 is not going to be intimidating. Also, would the 24-105F4L also be considering inferior and not “professional” to you as well? After all that is considered a kit lens as well…..

Food for thought.