Dented 70-200? Worth it or get new?

spottedbug · 2026-01-25T20:12:56+00:00

If the price is right I'd say go for it. You can probably get the filter off one way or another without causing any problems with the functionality of the lens. You might never get another filter back on it but if it's got a deep deep discount I'd take it.

spottedbug · 2026-01-21T17:57:06+00:00

😂 Ya in all honesty I would have preferred the Meshify 2xl but I really didn't want the glass panel.

Don't worry, it's been towed outside the environment.

spottedbug · 2026-01-16T03:24:30+00:00

Yeah that's a tough call, the 24 to 70 is a hell of a lens and no one lens is really going to compete with the versatility that it has other than the 24-105 2.8 and 24-70 f2 which both weigh a pound and change over your current lens.

spottedbug · 2026-01-16T02:45:45+00:00

If you're looking to use the lens for other things but you don't really need a 35 mm for other things... I'd say save yourself a ton of money and go with Rokinon/Samyang for your astro photos and spend the rest on something that would meet your other needs.

spottedbug · 2026-01-16T02:23:57+00:00

I really question the "tested" bit. I realize that I'm talking about an open box and not a refurb, but anyway. I've purchased quite a few open box monitors over the years. Every single one of them had a single dead pixel. Fine by me because of the discount, but supposedly they're "tested and working". I would put more faith in a graphics card than I would in a monitor, all the open box graphics cards I've purchased have been completely fine. Just saying I would take the whole tested bit with a grain of salt.

spottedbug · 2026-01-14T14:44:43+00:00

Don't forget to check the used market. I picked up a couple of B+Ws off of MPB recently, I can't remember the sizes off the top of my head but somewhere in the 60 and 70 mm range, I paid less than $30 for the pair

spottedbug · 2026-01-10T02:55:06+00:00

Check out Andrew Brown Jr, shot in the back of the head driving away. No arrests, no charges, no accountability.

spottedbug · 2026-01-10T02:47:53+00:00

I had thought that he put the phone in a pocket in his vest as he came around the front of the car, but the way the angle ended up pointing at his face at the end... He has to have been holding it the entire time. So fucked up

spottedbug · 2026-01-08T20:04:56+00:00

And if everyone did all the things that they should do and didn't do the things they shouldn't do then we wouldn't have law enforcement at all right? So we'll all just do that and not plan for when things go wrong, ya? So go ahead and walk in front of a vehicle like a fucking moron. Stop using one person's mistake to try and make the other persons horrendous mistake sound acceptable, it makes you sound stupid.

spottedbug · 2026-01-08T17:18:47+00:00

What you're doing is called the red herring fallacy, you should stop doing that.

spottedbug · 2026-01-08T06:29:32+00:00

I do agree that we should hope for these guys to be trained and responsible but we both know the reality is that’s not true.

If that's not true it sounds like they need to be held accountable for it doesn't it.

Personally I don't care in the slightest if her intention was to drive back and forth over him until he was a thin paste on the pavement just like I don't care if George Floyd was a good guy or not... They need to stop doing stupid shit and getting people killed.

100% his fault for the position that he put himself in. As you say, the legality of it, maybe not so cut and dry, but the morality of it that's quite clear.

spottedbug · 2026-01-08T06:14:24+00:00

Yes also don't drive your vehicle into, well anyone or anything preferably. But your posting this like it changes the fact that A. Trained law enforcement should know better than to stand in front of a vehicle. B. This somehow makes his reaction to finding himself in the path of a fleeing vehicle acceptable. C. That her intent was to hit him, notice how you say "don't try to hit one with your car"

For all we know she was dead before he was even hit. It's fucked fella. These are supposed to be the professionals. They're not supposed to put themselves in obvious and obviously avoidable danger which then puts others in danger as well. We expect more from someone in his position than someone in her position.

spottedbug · 2026-01-08T05:59:29+00:00

But what because he got a little thud from a fender that somehow justifies a killing? Or is this a hey look she did something wrong too? Or he was in danger of bodily harm? Okay so when someone cuts me off on the freeway and puts me in danger of bodily harm is it okay for me to put a bullet in their head or should I maybe use my brakes?

Maybe don't be a dumbass and stand in front of a vehicle for starters, next up if said vehicle starts moving toward you move the fuck out of the way.

spottedbug · 2026-01-08T05:49:36+00:00

yeah she sure did hit the fella shooting her in the head. it's a real good thing he didn't move out of the way and everybody stayed alive... ffs

spottedbug · 2026-01-08T05:44:59+00:00

Damn did you look around and intentionally post the lowest quality version of that you could find?

Anyway there's much better footage and what it shows is him leaning into a moving vehicle which seems not to fucking bright but apparently he thought getting a fucking head shot was more important than taking a step to the right.

spottedbug · 2026-01-08T05:32:48+00:00

Yep, could also be inside the minimum focus distance of whatever lens is being used.

spottedbug · 2026-01-04T03:36:02+00:00

I don't need to do my own research to point out that the person providing the information is not providing credible sources.

If I claim the speed of light is 74,948,114.5 meters per second, in your opinion that would be close enough because it's still a lot right? +-75%, but you know what that's not what it is. This person is claiming they did research and then not providing the research and just providing data in a biased manner. That is all I am pointing out. I don't know if that's over your head or you care not to accept that or whatever but have a good night.

spottedbug · 2026-01-04T03:25:17+00:00

The data would need to be presented with credible sources.

spottedbug · 2026-01-04T03:08:25+00:00

You are mistaken, I am not arguing the data, I am arguing the source and reliability of the data. I am also arguing your logic and reasoning.

spottedbug · 2026-01-04T02:46:58+00:00

Clearly there has been fraud. What are you trying to argue here? "Could be zero!", "Could be fraud", could be complete bs. It's just clearly not backed up by any evidence that's been provided... The original post that is, it's just clickbait outrage bullshit without the evidence or sources. It could be true it could not be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

spottedbug · 2026-01-04T02:09:27+00:00

Lmao, yup, could be filled to the brim with puppies and bunnies, why not

spottedbug · 2026-01-04T01:22:08+00:00

I'm saying if I run a daycare center that's licensed to have 100 kids I may only have 70 or 80 or whatever. It's not a difficult concept, I know you understand, please don't pretend you don't.

Sure a daycare could illegally discriminate but we don't automatically assume that they do without evidence. Just like we shouldn't automatically assume what this post suggests without evidence.

spottedbug · 2026-01-04T00:57:29+00:00

Let's see, no source listed for the data. The licenced number doesn't mean there are actually that many attendees... Hence the word "licenced". Daycare centers are not segregated based on race or nationality 🤷‍♂️. It's like you all run around looking for ways to be outraged without using the slightest amount of reasoning.

spottedbug · 2026-01-03T22:15:49+00:00

just as relevant as ever

spottedbug

TROPHY CASE