Most being 54% of people?

and yeah, it does take time - I'm still working on it myself but they do offer a lot of hints. Shutterstock is the best one for Microstock IMHO. Istockphoto is good, but you won't make as much money as shutterstock. Alamy is great for macrostock (i.e. if you have some pro-level shots good for posters), and can net you a few hundred for each download.

EDIT: http://www.istockphoto.com/tutorial_2.1_focus.php is a great tutorial for those interested in taking better photo's as well - not just for stock

http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=563950 if anyone is interested

Going to go the sell-out route and do macro or even ... micro-stock.

Don't get me wrong here lads, I'm not saying that the older lenses are better - I'm just trying to figure out how much better the newer lenses are.

I'd actually like to get into making money with photography so I'm trying to figure out what's the bare minimum I need in terms of glass to not be laughed off.

Damn, while I was pondering it, http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260569616629&ssPageName=ADME:B... went up and was sold. Piss me right off, I was about to pull the trigger there.

So, I'm thinking of selling my FA 50mm f/1.4 to buy a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. What's my lens worth / what could I reasonably expect for it? It's mint+ with box and manual.

It's true, I do like my lil Miranda. [IMG]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7442/faucetlittle.jpg[/IMG]

Now when you say not in the same league - this is what I'm going for. What is it that makes the images different? If things are composed the same way, how does a higher quality lens impact the image? We're all able to do histogram analysis afterwards, shoot in raw to make sure the colours are great. Hell, we can do HDR to make sure that we have the full range of colours. The only thing I can think of is pixel-wise sharpness - but when you stop down to f/8 is there a real noticeable difference? I realize for sport / animal life you need speed. But if you've got a good flash, or a mono/tripod you can always stop it down to go on the cheap to get the most of the images.

Also, back to my previous question, which is better: limited or the * series?

So, my FA 50mm f/1.4 versus the DA* 55mm f1.4 - both are as bright, is there really that much of a difference? I see resolution charts showing that there is little to none. It almost makes me think its that good photographers buy good glass - thus most good photographs you see come from good glass.

Also, how bout when comparing lenses - which is better: Limited or * series?

So I can get that the * series and the limited series are more expensive. They are brighter (i.e. 200mm f2.8 ) than the other lenses, and people say they are sharper and have better colour rendition. They also cost a lot more.

Now if someone had the exact same focal length, shot the same scene with a * / Limited / Regular (DA, FA, F, or A) at f/8 in a perfectly exposed situation - what kind of differences are we talking about. Is it point and shoot versus SLR type difference in the quality of the images? Can any of this quality be made up for with post-processing?

Also, what are we talking about quality wise: * > Limited > DA > FA > A, or more like * >= Limited >> DA,FA,A