Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

5

The AF-S 28-70/2.8D f/2.8 has been out of production since 2007. It's an older version of the lens that's more or less be replaced by the newer 24-70. Nearly every lens that's been superseded tends to cost less than newer replacement models, especially if found used (when it was brand new in 2002, the 28-70/2.8 cost $1400, which if you cost adjust, comes in ...


18

The focal length/speed is only one factor in the retail price of the lens. Other goodies like construction (metal vs. plastic), image stabilization (and other automation in general) and vintage can easily add (or remove) a zero. The two lenses in the question are very different products. The 2.8G is a newer product and lacks an aperture ring - the diaphragm ...


5

AFAIK the 28-70 isn't being produced anymore since 2008-ish? So if you are buying a new one today chances are it's been in somebody's warehouse for at least 6 years burning a hole in their pocket. The new version also allegedly boasts a better nano-coating on the front element. Not sure what else might be making up for the price difference.


0

What is difficult is to build a zoom that can maintain a constant aperture as low as 2.8 along the entire zoom range. Those lens has the characteristics that you can shoot at 70mm or 200mm at f/2.8. To be able to do this make a lens expensive. Check for example cheaper lens from Nikon. You will see that changing focal lens (zooming) will change the minimum ...


2

Depending upon how the television company came across your photo, they may have no idea whether you are a professional who expects to receive good money for your work, an amateur who lucked into a really nice photo and would be delighted just to see his work on television, or something in-between. Further, while it's possible that your photo was uniquely ...


3

Regardless of the request, the TV station was so disingenuous with you, I'd almost simply recommend walking away. That is, at first they only offered the minimum legal amount for a transaction ($1) then they increased their offer to $50, that they clearly had when they first spoke to you. Now they are crying poverty. I'd just say "No, thank you" OR .... ...


0

Yes, you're right to insist on being properly compensated. And since they started out with such an insulting, low-ball offer, the TV show is probably not a worthwhile place for your photo. Maybe other opportunities will come along, maybe they won't. But in the meantime, you don't want to die from "exposure" (pun fully intended).


4

They are being predatory. You don't have to license anything to them. I would turn that down, and I would tell them to have fun finding usable photography from someone willing to work that cheap, and to come talk to me again when they wanted to pay pro rates. It's not worth your time to waste time on this stuff. That said, a couple of other notes. You ...


0

I would not let this opportunity escape. I would offer them a payment to use my photograph or accept their 1 dollar offer. I would see if I could add a ghost-logo to the image. Ask if I could be listed in the program credits. This is networking move. A speck on the field of potential recognition.



Top 50 recent answers are included