Build-in Lens Hood on Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Last year, P&C insurers made only a 3.3% profit as a return on revenues</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, still, that is after paying a lot of salaries, buildings, maintenances ... i.e. all sorts of expenses to remain in business. All of those overhead comes from your premium.</p>

<p>Sometimes insurance is a necessarity; sometimes it is required by law like auto insurance. However, if you buy any insurance that is not required, you are going to be the big loser. I have bought home-owners insurance for 20+ years, part of that is required since I have a mortgage. In 20+ years I have never even filed one claim.</p>

<p>Moreover, if you are accident prone and need to make a lot of claims, the insurance company will either raise your premium to some ridiculous level or simply drop you altogether. They exist solely for the purpose of making money; they won't be interested in you if you are merely a liability.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Shun, when you turn on the television and see the business talking heads discussing the "profitability" of a business, they are discussing the business' net profits, that 3.3% number. That's the number you look at when deciding if you'll invest in a business, as that's the number that reflects the potential return on investment for shareholders.</p>

<p>Now if everyone working for property and casualty insurers was making a six- or seven-figure salary, but the industry was only posting a 3.3% net profit, you would certainly want to consider gross profits v. net profits. But I can tell you that P&C insurers, as a group, run tight ships. Walk into your local insurance company office, and you'll find modestly-paid employees working in small cubicles. Moreover, state insurance departments tightly-regulate the amount insurers can charge for homeowners and auto insurance- you aren't getting taken to the cleaners. </p>

<p><em>"(I)f you buy any insurance that is not required, you are going to be the big loser. I have bought home-owners insurance for 20+ years, part of that is required since I have a mortgage. In 20+ years I have never even filed one claim."</em></p>

<p>Your argument proves too much. To date, your insurer has made a profit investing your premiums. However, if your house burned to the ground tomorrow, your insurer would have to pay exponentially more to replace your home and its contents than the insurer would ever have received from you in premiums. Also, your premiums have, in large part, been spent by your insurer repairing or replacing the homes of other policyholders who haven't been as fortunate as you. This spreading of risk across many policyholders is the nature of property insurance.</p>

<p>I've made a number of claims over the last twenty years, and my property/casualty/auto insurer hasn't dropped me or even raised my rates. As to all-risk warranties, I could buy as many of those as I wanted to- another warranty with each piece of equipment- and would never be "drop(ped)." </p>

[eric friedemann]

<p><em>"(Insurance companies) exist solely for the purpose of making money(.)"</em></p>

<p>About that, many P&C insurers are what are called "mutual companies," companies that are owned by policyholders- not shareholders. With such companies, what would be net profits are redistributed to policyholders. In fact, several times over the years, I've received premium refund checks back from my insurer:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance</a></p>

<p>As such, if your insurer is a mutual company, the company was created to- and exists for- the purpose of insuring policyholders.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Eric, this thread is not about how much profit insurance companies make. The issue is very simple; look at the bigger picture: how much insurance companies collect as premium and how much they pay out on claims. The difference is their overhead for being in business and their profit; that includes all the big salaries they pay as well as the much smaller salaries they pay to the clerks to process your paperwork, the rent for their offices, the computers ... and their profit.</p>

<p>If you buy insurance, you are paying for all of those overhead costs. You might benefit on one claim, but in the longer run, you always pay a lot more in premiums than you collect. Otherwise, the insurance companies will lose money and go out of business. You are much better off saving on the premiums and pay for any necessary repair cost to cut off that middle person. If you cannot figure out something so simple, I cannot help you.</p>

<p>It has been reported that something as lilttle as like 1% of the premium collected from extended warranties is actually used to fixed the items under warranty. Most of the money they collect is profit for various people down the chain. That is why stores (especially Best Buy) agressively push for those extended warranties. Even though that number is actually 10% or 50%, when you pay $1 and get only $0.50 in return on the average, it is still a very bad deal for the purchaser.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p><em>"You might benefit in one claim, but in the longer run, you always pay a lot more in premiums than you collect."</em></p>

<p>Jeeze, Shun, my ex-wife's an insurance executive and I don't have a chip on my shoulder about the business like you have. Hedging your bets with insurance doesn't make insurance a waste of money.</p>

<p>Insurance spreads risk over a large pool of policyholders. Most people will pay more in premiums over a period of years than they collect. However, many people suffer catastrophic losses, and are paid back many times the amount they will ever pay in premiums. </p>

<p>I'm done. Peace and love. - E</p>

<p> </p>

[buri]

<blockquote>

<p>One other thing, I shoot D700s, but instead of buying the 14-24mm f/2.8, I opted for the 16-35mm f/4.0. The two extra mms I would have had on the 14-24mm weren't that dear to me; and the VR on the 16-35mm makes up for the difference between f/2.8 and f/4.0.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok guys, since you brought this up, I will ask. I bought the 14-24mm because it is the sharpest wide-angle lens I have ever used (and don't even get me started on the amazing lack of distortion). I shoot strictly DX now (D300 and D200 backup), so I use the 14-24mm f2.8 AF-S, 50mm 1.8 AF-D, and 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S). It seems to me that with a DX sensor, this coverage is more than adequate to shoot almost anything. Eventually, I will add a 24-70mm 2.8, but I am hoping Nikon adds VR to this lens in the next rendition. When I switch to DX, I think my 14-24mm lens will see less use, but by then I will have the 24-70mm. I just don't see why I would want to switch to a 17-35mm f2.8 or 16-35mm f4....I don't think the wide-angle performance is equivalent to the 14-24mm (which to me is the whole point). Maybe I am hard headed, but I think I will stick with the 14-24mm.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Ryan-</p>

<p>The 14-24mm is a great lens, and you've pointed out some good reasons for buying it. Since the post is about damage to part of the front of a lens, my main point was that, if someone didn't need the extra two mms on the 14-24mm, the 16-35mm has an changeable lens hood and takes protection filters, adding a little bit of security if the front of the lens gets dinged.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>-E</p>

[buri]

<p>Yeah, I'll admit that it would have been nice to have the 16-35mm on that day!</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Plus, Ken Rockwell says the 16-35mm is sharper than the 14-24mm. :> )</p>

[rick_paul2]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I found this thread bc I have a similar problem as the TS. My 14-24 has a small piece broken off the lens hood. It's an uneven piece of approx 1,5 cm (0.5 inch) wide and varies between 0 and 0,5 cm (0.15 inch) deep (kind of like a triangle shape).</p>

<p>Needless to say it doesn't look great. The lens itself is perfectly ok, but it just bothers me from a visual perspective.<br>

I saw someone advices to use miliput to fill up any holes, dents etc. Would that work in this case? And how would one advice to get it perfectly following the shape of the outerline of the hood? Maybe by making a mold of some kind?<br>

How would one do that best? And what materials to use to make the mold?</p>

<p>Thanks for your help.</p>

<p> </p>