There's nothing wrong with using enanthate or cypionate. Their duration of action is only problematic if aiming for the 2 week window within which LHRH responsiveness isn't suppressed. But most want to do cycles longer than that.
There is nothing unreasonable with say 8 weeks, and enanthate or cypionate are fine for that.
As for those saying Oh but I'd gain more with 12 week cycles, this is -- unless there is something about the specific calendar date in question such as a contest 12 weeks from now -- just short-sighted thinking.
E.g., if having a total of 24 weeks worth of steroids and planning on being "on" a total of 24 weeks in the next year -- which is a quite substantial percentage of time "on" but not unreasonable with proper PCT and not doing tapers -- then if doing 12 week cycles that means the end result, or at-1-year result, is the product of two 12 week cycles.
But if doing 8 week cycles the end result, or at-1-year result, is the product of three 8 week cycles.
Which winds up being more productive. Probably because the earlier weeks of a cycle are more productive than the tail end weeks of long cycles, and because recovery is less of an issue -- generally no issue really -- with cycle length held to this more efficient level.
The folk whining about post-cycle miseries, or how they HAVE to taper or else life is just so bad, are really testifying about how badly planned their cycles were in terms of length and/or compounds used. Though of course they don't see it that way, it seems.