Admittedly, just this one pro but I thought it might be helpful for recreational shooters to hear what goes into my thinking when I'm purchasing equipment for the business. Let me start off by saying that I love photo gear: cameras, lenses, lighting, etc. I've been "playing" with this stuff for over 40 years and I can get as excited about that new camera or new lens as anybody.
However, when I consider the purchase of a piece of equipment for my business, I refer to it as a "depreciable asset". That asset has to be something I need for the business and it has to pay it's way. That is, it has to provide me with a return on investment and it has to provide it quickly. For example, I just purchased a Canon 70-200mm F4L IS. I should point out that I have previously owned the non-IS version of this lens and sold it a few years ago to purchase primes: the 85 F1.8 and the 200 F2.8L. Why? Because the primes were more appropriate for what I had booked at the time. Recently, I've been shooting more Herding Trials and I've rented the F4L IS for those events and loved how it handles and the IQ. I also have some Dog Shows booked for the Fall and a couple of weddings. There's no question that a zoom works better in those situations for show candids and wedding coverage.
So, how did I like the primes? Loved them!! They were sharp, fast and a joy to use. But they were not as useful for what I currently am shooting so I used their market value to help finance the purchase of the F4L IS. That's one other key point for me from a business perspective: when I went into business in 2000, I made a fairly large capital outlay for my gear. Over the years, I've traded, sold and recycled my gear to acquire new stuff without ever having to rely on investing more capital. Now, I've spent a ton on computer gear and software over the years so I've had an annual capital budget. But I've been able to keep my actual photo gear within the original cash outlay. That's important to me.
The other thing that's important to me is not buying something that is more than I actually need. I decided on the 70-200 F4L IS after testing it thoroughly against the F2.8L IS VI. I did not even consider the VII F2.8L IS because it's out of my budget and much too heavy for me to hand-hold, which is how I shoot ring candids and weddings. My testing confirmed that the F4L IS is at least as sharp as the V1 F2.8 and is actually slightly sharper with a 1.4 Telextender.
I also bought a used lens from KEH. I've had excellent luck with used lenses over the years and have always made back my investment in full when I've sold them. Most folks getting rid of a F4L IS are looking to move up to the 2.8 version so you can find some excellent quality lenses at very reasonable prices.
The big question for me -- like many of you -- is whether the loss of one stop of speed from the F2.8 was going to be an issue. I tested that at the AKC Eukanuba Championship and was able to get decent moving shots (action-stopping shots) at F4 and ISO 3200 with my 7D. The 7D produces decent images at ISO 6400 so I know I have a bit more room in really dim environments. I concluded that for 99% of my shooting, the F4 will work just fine. If I need something faster for a particular event, I'll rent it.
So, my approach to equipment is not so much what I
want; it has to be what I
need. It has to be able to produce a return on investment. It has to be functional and it has to fit my style of shooting rather than asking me to adapt to it. Does that mean that my gear is all about being cerebral and without any fun-factor? Not at all!! My first test will be to head off to the Orlando Wetlands Park for a wildlife shoot with the new lens and my 1.4 Telextender. I'll make up some sort of excuse about having to test the lens out thoroughly but, frankly, it'll be all about having fun with my new toy. Uh, new depreciable asset.
Jim
