My take on Kens post is:
Context is important. He is obviously not talking about or to professionals who require professional gear. The post is for those using a camera such as a D40 or D80 who shoot casual photographs, be it of the family, city or landscapes. Not photographers but people who own a camera and take photographs as a casual hobby.
A D80 and a 18-200 is a great combo for them, it covers a wide range, they can get some nice results and they have not purchased above their skill or needs level. They don’t need a $3000 camera and a $3000 lens, it would be a waist of money.
They don’t really know that much about photography, they enjoy taking photographs, they occasionally take something quite nice, they might visit sites like DPR to get some information, ask some questions. At sites like DPR they are told that the Nikon 18-55 is a bad lens and that if they only spent $3000 on the f2.8 17-55 they would start getting good photographs. Photography is all about gear they are told. You must have the latest Canon/ Nikon/ Pentax/ Sony/ Olympus and you must have professional lenses. Without good gear you are only an “Amateur”, the lowliest of the low in the world of photography.
So, these people get caught up in the freakiness that is gear fetish worship. Will a $3000 lens make them a better photographer. Unlikely.
Would $3000 be better spent on a fast lens or spent on such things as some life drawing lessons, learning how to observe and see the world, some decent photography books, both technical and more importantly, books of images by the greats such as Ansel Adams, Robert Mapplethorpe, Julia Margaret Cameron etc etc and lets throw in a workshop with a local photographer or photography school for good measure.
There are too many people on the net, on sites like DPR, that believe that gear is the answer. You look at their gear lists and they have ridiculous amounts of money invested on gear and you look at their photographs, if they have a link to their images, and the images may be sharp (sometimes) but they lack life, vision, art, soul.
Gear most certainly has its place, I like a good piece of kit as much as the next person but it won’t make you a good photographer. I believe Ken is trying to show new hobby photographers that in the context of a casual hobby a $500 lens is just as good as $3000 lens and I agree, for many casual hobby photographers that extra $2500 would be better spent on other things.
For a professional, be it commercial or fine art, a dedicated enthusiast, then yep, it's a different conversation, different priorities, different needs. But his post isn’t aimed at them.
