Bom, coloquei somente minha opinião. Quem lida com público classe C pode usar uma 40D com boas lentes e flashes e fazer um trabalho decente. Em todas as cidades, capitais e interior, existem os públicos A e B. Gente que gasta 50 mil, 100 mil, 200 mil numa casamento, no grande dia de duas famílias. Um fotógrafo que pensa que está "economizando" 1700 reais pode estar se prejudicando (não digo nem prejudicando os noivos, e sim a si mesmo). Não é porque os clientes podem parecer que não são tão exigentes. Todo mundo se julga minimamente talentoso, mas precisa de ferramenta que colabore para expandir sua criatividade, certamente. Não estamos falando do segmento ultra-top de equipamento. Estamos falando de Fullframe que hoje tem preço bastante acessível pra quem trabalha com isso. Outro dia li um texto que achei interessante. No dpreview. Era sobre uma lente cara, a Nikon 24 1.4. Enfim, vale pelo conceito colocado.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=36067840Why is the 24mm 1.4 so expensive?
It does better than that, for a pro who "needs" it, it brings money to the bank.
Most people surely do not need this lens, but of course most people also do not need a DSLR but for those who have an income producing capability by using this or any lens, it is a minor cost of business. A flight to an assignment locale will cost more yet produce no income.
A descent afternoon of shooting can pay for it twice....if someone, the client, really needs it.
Overall, the business of photography is one of the cheapest businesses in existence. What is the base cost of opening a cafe, a fast food outlet, TV/Appliance store, or furniture store? A pro photographer can be in business for $10,000 in lenses and $5,000 in lighting, stands etc and a couple of $5,000 bodies. He might accumulate $60,000 in lenses eventually but still compare that to any other small business.
My career was in music recording for decades and owned a large independent studio. Even comparing to much valuable 1980s money with todays worthless dollars, the photography business is on the cheaper than dirt level of business costs. I had about 100 classic tube mics each worth between $1000 and $12,000, 3 mixing consoles that cost $500,000 each(or 4x times that now), dozens of effects units at $10,000 or more back when a new Ferrari cost $18,000, and a staff of 25 highly skilled people, all that and more just to be able to charge per hour what a pro photographer gets now. Despite those odds, we made a ton of money from the 70s to the 90s when the record industry collapsed. If a staff person came to me in the middle of a project with a complaint that a $2,400 piece of equipment was needed to do the task, I would have told him to not bother me with such trivial expenses, just get it.
Quibbling about a $2400 lens that might earn an extra $10,000 in a year of just occasional use is just plain dumb.
If someone does not need it, it is too expensive, but if someone does, it is a bargain and no-brainer.
It is not practical or reasonable to compare costs of a hobby and a business, they have two different objectives and realities.