The Risk of Buying Expensive Used AF Lenses

Let's face it. Most of us amateur photo enthusiasts are not rich. It's our hobby that we maintain with what's left of the disposable income. That, of course, does not stop us from dreaming to own some nice gear.  Unfortunately, there is always this little problem of money, or the lack of it. So, the only way we can afford some of them is to buy used. My Canon 200mm f1.8L was the MOST expensive lens I have bought, ever, and I don't want to even remember how much I paid.

Buying used of anything comes with its associated risks. We don't know what the previous owner(s) did to them. They could have abused them, or took very good care of them.  We simply don't know. Fortunately, this part of the risk is relatively low, as we can usually test it before buying. The most risky aspect is the actual repair of very old auto focus lenses.

Once a lens is discontinued by the manufacturer, they might make a run of the most commonly used parts for the discontinued lens, that would enough for repairs for about 10 years. If the parts are used up, you are SOL. So, those 200mm f1.8L, first generation 300mm f2.8L, 400mm f2.8L, etc, are usually not even repairable any more, because parts are no longer available. Sometimes, I think manufacturers do this because they want us to buy their latest replacement lens, which cost 2x to 3x more expensive than the old one.

In the case of my 200mm f1.8L, the lens can still take pictures, but at the fixed distance, whatever it was when it stopped working. The sad thing about this particular lens, is that once AF is lost, you can not manual focus either. Just imagine for a moment, your $4000 lens, still one of the best out there, looks pretty, but now useless, because you can't even focus it manually. Many of Canon's USM lenses are like this; it would not work once AF is shot.

So, what do you do with an expensive, but non-functional lens? Hang it on the wall like a 3-D art object? Pray to the lens god everyday, and hope it would start working again? Or sell it for next to nothing?  There is something that can be done about lenses like this one.

I once read about a Chinese Si Foo (master) who does lens conversion, and he made a sea water damaged EF 85mm f1.2L into a manual focus lens. You can read about it here. It's definitely not an attempt for the faint of heart, or the casual DIY type. Extensive surgery is required. I think the same thing can be done for the EF 200mm f1.8L, but no one knows until some brave soul tries it.

So, tomorrow I will go pick up the 200mm f1.8L, put it in the case, and wait for some miracle to happen.

William. This is one of my favourite pictures from the 200mm f1.8L. Taken with Canon T2i, ISO 6400 @ f1.8

Are Ultra Fast Lenses Still Relavent?

William -- Canon T2i & EF 200mm f1.8L @ f1.8, ISO 6400. Click for larger.  This picture looks horrible in color, but is actually not bad when converted to B&W.  To me, the T2i/7D ISO 6400 is only usable in Black & White. 

For most people, they need want fast lenses so that they can shoot at low light or have high enough shutter speed to stop the action; some will buy them because they are less common.  A small percentage would buy high speed lenses for the super thin depth of field affect. Of course, others will buy them because they could.  Personally, I like fast lenses for the first three reason I listed above, but mostly so that I can take blurry-free pictures in low light. 

With today's new crop of sensors that are so good in high ISO performance, we can take relatively noise free pictures at ISO 3200 or higher.  Your slow f2.8 lenses are no longer the limiting factor, if you can accept the slightly noisy pictures.  So, if you had a very capable camera that can take clean pictures at high ISO, given a chance, would you still buy that f1.2/f1.4 lens that you have always lusted after?  The price of a Canon EF 24mm f1.4L II and the EF 24mm f2.8 is $1849 vs. $419 CAD (approximate, at Henrys.com as of today). The difference is two stops faster for the f1.4 version over the f2.8, but at about four times the cost.  Well, yes, there is more to an expensive lens than just letting more light through.  The built quality and materials used are better, but under normal use, I doubt there is much difference in logivity.

There are legitimate reason for fast lenses, especially if you are into actions/sport photography. I know that my 200mm f1.8L is often not fast enough for indoor use, so for this kind of uses, we need all the speed we can get.

But, most of the time, for me at least, I often buy stuff irrationally.  For example, the 50mm f1.2 vs 50mm f1.4 Canon lenses.  It's a 1/3 stop faster for the f1.2, but many times the price over the f1.4.  When I bought the lens, I fully understood that under normal use, they practically have zero difference shooting from f2 on.  Yet, I bought the more expensive version.  What justified my decision?   My reason was really simple.  I wanted something less common than most others.  This also explains why I have "made" so many of my own lenses from projection and enlarging lenses, because majority of people would not have these kind of lenses, and therefore, pictures that look different from these kind of lenses.

Of course, all of these talk is nil if money is the primary factor.  I would not be able to do it again today, because my personal disposable income situation has changed.  If I wanted the 50mm lens today, I would be buying the EF 50mm f1.4, not the 50mm f1.2L.  So, I think another factor in buying faster lenses is because we could afford it.

From my point of view, for most people, the faster lenses are no longer a neccesity to take blurry-free pictures, and they would be happy with a slower lens.  For lens junkies like me, we want fast lenses.  In fact, the brighter the better!

The New Canon Rebel T2i (550D) Digital Camera

My first DSLR was the original 300D. That camera was a ground breaking product for both Canon and the digital SLR market. The first DSLR that was sold under $1000US. Naturally, we Canadian paid more, as we always seems to get the short end of the stick when it comes to pricing on camera gear. We pay an average 20% to 40% more than our American neighbours. But I never regretted buying the Rebel 300D new. The memories it captured of my kids are priceless.

That was year 2003.

Almost 7 years later, Canon announced the 6th generation Rebel -- the T2i or 550D. More megapixels, faster (just barely), gorgeous LCD screen, Live-View, and best of all, full HD video.

I am not a video guy, but I have been itching to try it. I thought about the 5D II, but can't afford it. The T1i was nice, but, crippled at only 20 frames per second on 1080p. The 7D is also very nice, but still too expensive as my third camera. The T2i seems just perfect in terms of price and features.

I think this camera will shake up the market again, though not as much as the original Rebel, forcing most manufacturers to put full HD video on even the entry level DSLRs. I do think that 18 megapixels is kind of ridiculous. 12 MP with ultra high ISO will be better than 18PM with good high ISO.

This might be my second brand new Digital Rebel!