Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Cost per ounce

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Wink Cost per ounce

    Just for fun ... I took the cost of each SONY & TAMRON lenses and divided it by the lens' respective weight to find the "cost per ounce" of ownership

    Here it is, by the dollar (budget accordingly ):

    Name:  Weighty-Issue.jpg
Views: 96
Size:  332.3 KB

    It's not how much you carry ... it's what you spent to carry it.

    This and other meaningless tripe ... as we go forward
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    2,364
    Too many lenses for me; I'm more of a minimalist.

    You have a lot invested and this list makes you recognize that.
    Neat idea breaking it down by the ounce.
    That Sony 300mm lens is stupid expensive. Why?
    US Navy--Hooyah!

    Nikon D700/D300|17-35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, Sigmalux, 80-200 f/2.8, 16 f/2.8 fisheye,

    Lots of flashes and Honl gear.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554
    You can find the Minolta 300mm f/2.8 APO for around $3200 ... but, it lacks the new SSM ... and that's still hard to appreciate with a $2800 increase in lens cost. True, the MFD is a bit closer ... but you are quite correct, it is obscenely priced and has been since day one.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    8
    I have seen the Minolta 300 APO G (D) SSM lens sell for around 4500.00~5000.00 yet still expensive.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    8
    Sure makes me wonder if you need to buy these expensive lenses from the Camera Store or a Jewelry Store. Ha!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    You get what you pay for , good stuff is at the bottom!

    You could also throw in the A900, A700, A300/350, A200, and A100 into the mix. A900 is by far the heaviest and it goes down from there.
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by dr4gon View Post
    good stuff is at the bottom!
    yes, as is the image quality.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    But I love my Tokina AT-X 840! the 'cheapest' cost per ounce lens on the list, and there are only 6 'heavier' lenses on the list so that shoud make it a bargin right? right? LOL If you got the lght and the support it is a sweet shooting lens
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •