aapitcher

Hi Everyone,

I'm just wondering if anybody has any idea of how long the "standard" back-order time is for this lens? Everybody

had it in stock about 2 weeks ago, only for it to disappear when I finally made the decision to dive in. Thanks a

bunch!

- AP

Hey, thanks again for the responses, I think the 80-200mm is the clear choice for me.

Just as a note, I don't plan on using this for 'just snapshots' but I do need something with a bit more reach. I have a 10.5mm fisheye, an 18-70mm, a 50 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8, so I have the lower end more or less covered (though I would like a 12-24 at some point!). My favorite 85 f/1.8, but the length can be a bit limiting in both directions.

I plan on using the longer zoom for nature photos as well as well as for portraits, though there are a lot of times when it would come in handy.

Hey thanks for all of the responses so quickly! As of right now I'm shooting on a D200, but considering an upgrade to the D300 at some point (unless I decide to wait for a full frame at some later point... I'm still debating that one).

I guess from my perspective, the VR would come in handy at times, but whenever I really go out shooting I have a tripod along with me so this would be more just for snapshots. In that sense I guess I answered my own question, I just wanted to hear what people's thoughts were, especially from people who may have purchased the 80-200 only to upgrade to the VR later. Thanks again for the knowledge!

- AP

Hi everybody,

I'm looking to get one of these lenses, and so far I haven't seen a head to head comparison between them, though

I've heard great things about both. I shoot a little bit of everything (nature, travel, portrait, street

photography). Is the VR really worth the extra ~$800? Thanks in advance for the help!

- AP

"Never pay anyone for pirated stuff, not even $5, it's seriously stupid."

No, get it for free. And be smart enough to avoid the viruses.

Again, I think the thing is that Adobe has been one of the smart companies and is actually adapting to the reality of the internet instead of trying to fight a battle that can't be won. I think they're doing quite well with their strategy.

To be honest I don't think it makes sense to look at piracy as a moral issue anymore, but rather as an economic issue. Try turning the question around: why would any high-school kid try to save up $1800 for a piece of software that they can get for free? In that case, if they never really would have paid for it, then did Adobe really lose anything by them downloading it? Maybe, but probably not. I argue that they gained from it -- some percent of these kids will become dedicated users and buy several generations of their software. It's better than losing these potential customers early. It's great, free advertising. It keeps their product's status as a necessity. While it may be and likely is true that over 50% of the copies of CS out there are pirated, that doesn't mean that Adobe is losing 50% of their revenue.

A few notes -- I keep using kids as the example because I think they're the demographic that downloads the most, by at least an order of magnitude. Also, I don't think it can be treated as a moral issue. For many people it is, and they equate it with brick-and-mortar theft. For a lot of people it isn't at all the same--they see it as stealing from a greedy corporate America.

For those of you saying things to the extent of "They better enjoy it while they can, because you won't be able to pirate the next version," I have one thing to say: wake up. Look at the trend. It will be impossible to stop piracy without severely limiting many other rights that we take for granted. The technology doesn't work that way. Every major tech company has thought they solved the problem, and every one of them has failed. Registration keys. Copy-protected discs. DRM.

I personally think that Adobe's strategy is a smart one. I think they understand that fighting common piracy is a losing battle, and that no matter how difficult they make it to pirate a piece of software, someone out there will break their scheme within a few hours of release. In addition, how many people that pirate their software actually would have been buyers anyways? Not a whole lot of people can justify buying $1800 worth of software just so they can mess around with it. The people that have a legitimate need for the software will probably still buy it -- either because they can, or they must due to legality concerns within a business. To see how dismal the other strategy is, just look at the RIAA. They're going absolutely nuts, prosecuting tons of innocent users, and spending their entire budgets of legal fees. They're struggling to hold on to an outdated business model, all the while music piracy hasn't dropped a bit.

On the other hand, Adobe's apparent policy has a lot of benefits. Kids that couldn't afford PS will still download it, use it, and become masters of it. That creates a dedicated user, and someday a small percentage of those users may lead to a company somewhere purchasing an enterprise edition of CS. Since none of those kids would ever have paid the full price for the legitimate software, this could be seen as free advertising of the best sort. Taking this a little further, I'd venture to guess that a lot of the people that put out photoshop plugins developed them using pirated copies (most businesses don't allocate manpower towards putting out free products), so these 'free users' are donating back to the community.

These are also the same users who are more likely to put up free tutorials online (quality is another issue...) that serves as a good hook to anyone just getting started in or even looking at PS. Just think back to the first time you saw some really cool or useful effect done with PS. Again, this is free advertising.

Just to pose a question, how often do you see advertisements for photoshop or any of the CS programs in mainstream media? In graphic design literature? Maybe some in the latter, but I've never seen a commercial or pop-up ad for any of them. I'd venture to guess that if the only possible way people use photoshop was to buy it, then Adobe would have to spend a considerably larger sum on advertising. Just an idea. I'm not necessarily saying that pirating is justified, but I do think that incorporating this into a business model, rather than trying to eliminate it completely, is a good thing.

- AP