Reading mode: Light Dark

Frustrated having "too" many lenses

Go to last post
For me, and I suspect most of the folks on this forum, this is only a hobby. Given that, what about the hobby is it that creates enjoyment ?

A good many will answer that only the finished product matters, and that the devices used to arrive at that point are only tools. If that's the case, anything that is unnecessary may just be getting in your way.

For me, the process is also an extremely enjoyable part. In particular the experience of using well crafted devices in the process. Personally, I just enjoy fondling the nicely engineered bits. Which is a good thing since I'm not a very talented photographer :)

I have 7 lenses for a medium format system. That's way more than what is required for the job. But for me the equipment is a major enjoyment factor.

If you like 'em, keep 'em :)

Those who make a living with this stuff will have different viewpoints, but that's an entirely different situation.
 
Last edited:
Mark_A said:
hotdog321 said:
Mark_A said:
hotdog321 said:
On two full frame cameras I use a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. But I do occasionally swap out the 16-35 for a 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I shoot editorial stuff, not weddings, so the wide range of focal lengths allows me more creative range. If I shot weddings, though, I would definitely be using the 24-70--it is just a perfect range for parties, galas, events and whatnot.
Click to expand...
I was having a look at your site and I like your images. Am I right that you use a bit of off camera flash?
Click to expand...
You bet. Off camera and often a second slaved (likely gelled) background flash. You can do a lot with two camera strobes.
Click to expand...
A remote flash trigger is on my Christmas list :-)

I have been meaning to get one for some time.

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60273364
Click to expand...
If you skip the expensive stuff, you can get a perfectly good manual radio trigger for about $20.
 
hotdog321 said:
Mark_A said:
hotdog321 said:
Mark_A said:
hotdog321 said:
On two full frame cameras I use a 16-35 f/4L IS and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. But I do occasionally swap out the 16-35 for a 24-70 f/2.8L II.

I shoot editorial stuff, not weddings, so the wide range of focal lengths allows me more creative range. If I shot weddings, though, I would definitely be using the 24-70--it is just a perfect range for parties, galas, events and whatnot.
Click to expand...
I was having a look at your site and I like your images. Am I right that you use a bit of off camera flash?
Click to expand...
You bet. Off camera and often a second slaved (likely gelled) background flash. You can do a lot with two camera strobes.
Click to expand...
A remote flash trigger is on my Christmas list :-)

I have been meaning to get one for some time.
Click to expand...
If you skip the expensive stuff, you can get a perfectly good manual radio trigger for about $20.
Click to expand...
Actually I may be able to beat even that, a buddy who has recently upgraded is going to let me have his old set free of charge. I believe it is a cheapo set but if it does the job I will be very happy.

I am really looking forward to getting my flash off camera, I am hoping it will open up lots of creative possibilities for me.

I don't know about what flash modifiers are possible, my flash is an old Sunpak model, I may have to get creative about filters and the like ..

Do you have any tips for someone just starting with off camera flash?

Mark_A

Thread for Sunrise & Sunset pictures (part 3!)
 
Well, in my case, just as an example-- I own an excellent copy of Pentax's 40mm Limited pancake. Bought it new for a song on a lucky day, and then discovered I have never liked it on any Pentax DSLR I have ever known. (A good enough lens, but nasty to balance and ugly as a wart.) So yes, it's hanging around, but it's waiting for that K-01 body I am eventually going to find, or maybe for some upcoming tiny mirrorless with a K-mount adapter. Or maybe I can trade it for something someday. And the amount of space a pancake lens takes up, even in a very small house like ours, is pretty minor. (I got rid of the two kit zooms pretty quickly.)
 
I'm primarily an artist, with color and composition rather than pixel peeping as my main "thing", but I also love fiddling around with cameras. Not a gearhead in the conventional sense of having the latest and greatest and constantly "churning-- my camera cabinet is home to a motley collection of long expired, usually secondhand (at least) cameras and lenses, and they tend to stay a long time. I buy based as much on play value as I do on results. Almost all modern cameras are capable of making images much better than anything I can tell them to make, so bleeding edge gear is not required. I just want to put edges on the world and mess around with cameras while I do it.
 
kisse said:
Is it stupid to keep that much lenses for D7200 when photography is just hobby for me?
Click to expand...
Not at all, especially if you use them all from time to time, and if they perform as needed.

Besides, you don't have to carry all of them all the time.
 
kisse said:
Hello!

I've got to the point where I have 8 lenses in use and I wouldn't want to get rid of any of them. I should be able to be fine with less lenses, but I see situations, where I need all of them. Do you see any unnecessary lens in this list? I am also considering move to FX in future, so 14mm and 50mm are kind of saved for that situation.

D7200 + grip

Sigma 8-16mm 4.5- (uwa, dramatic landscapes etc. and sold if moved to fx)

Samyang 14mm 2.8 (low light landscapes, night sky etc. and uwa for fx in future)

Sigma 17-50 2.8 os (general use, one lens solution, sold if moved to fx)

Nikon 50mm 1.8g (shallow dof shots, normal for future fx and too cheap to sell)

Sigma 105mm os macro (insects and other macro)

Tamron 70-200 2.8 vc (low light telephoto)

Nikon AF-D 75-240 (lightweight telephoto, very cheap)

Sigma 150-600 C (birds, wildlife)

In my opinion this list is too long, but I find use for all of them. Is it stupid to keep that much lenses for D7200 when photography is just hobby for me?
Click to expand...
No. Just resist the temptation to buy any more. Self flagellate in penance and repent your sins if you feel you must, and you will be fine.
 
Last edited:
I'll take the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 off your hands to reduce your inventory. Not interested in the others though. :-)

Whether there is anything morally wrong with spending this much money on a hobby is a matter for the theologians, not the gearheads. It seems to me that each lens you list has a distinct use so you are not being inefficient in that sense.
 
Every time my husband complains about the lenses, I remind him that my previous horse related hobby cost much much more.
 
JulesH said:
Every time my husband complains about the lenses, I remind him that my previous horse related hobby cost much much more.
Click to expand...
Another way of rationalising your various purchases is to have a friend with an expensive hobby.

The same day that I bought my D7100 at full retail price (it was the only one in town, just before Christmas), my wife visited a friend whose husband, bless him, had just bought a $16,000 road bike.
 
kisse said:
Samyang 14mm 2.8 (low light landscapes, night sky etc. and uwa for fx in future)

Sigma 17-50 2.8 os (general use, one lens solution, sold if moved to fx)

Nikon 50mm 1.8g (shallow dof shots, normal for future fx and too cheap to sell)

Sigma 105mm os macro (insects and other macro)

Tamron 70-200 2.8 vc (low light telephoto)

Sigma 150-600 C (birds, wildlife)

In my opinion this list is too long, but I find use for all of them. Is it stupid to keep that much lenses for D7200 when photography is just hobby for me?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/154487888@N08/
Click to expand...
what i decided to keep was above

now you got 3 primes and 3 zooms.

the only thing you are missing is a 55mm for portraits.

happy shooting.
 
kisse said:
Hello!

I've got to the point where I have 8 lenses in use and I wouldn't want to get rid of any of them. I should be able to be fine with less lenses, but I see situations, where I need all of them. Do you see any unnecessary lens in this list? I am also considering move to FX in future, so 14mm and 50mm are kind of saved for that situation.

D7200 + grip

Sigma 8-16mm 4.5- (uwa, dramatic landscapes etc. and sold if moved to fx)

Samyang 14mm 2.8 (low light landscapes, night sky etc. and uwa for fx in future)

Sigma 17-50 2.8 os (general use, one lens solution, sold if moved to fx)

Nikon 50mm 1.8g (shallow dof shots, normal for future fx and too cheap to sell)

Sigma 105mm os macro (insects and other macro)

Tamron 70-200 2.8 vc (low light telephoto)

Nikon AF-D 75-240 (lightweight telephoto, very cheap)

Sigma 150-600 C (birds, wildlife)

In my opinion this list is too long, but I find use for all of them. Is it stupid to keep that much lenses for D7200 when photography is just hobby for me?
Click to expand...
 
Another photographer in your situation might wish for more Nikon bodies to keep more of those lenses ready to roll. But yes, a DSLR , even a well equipped one, isn't always the tool you want.
 
Of course there is nothing inherently wrong about owning any number of lenses. Everyone has their reasons.

But surplus possessions, not only camera lenses, have a cost. Not only do they need to be stored and protected, and maintained, but they also seem to drain some of our attention, leaving less for things we care about more. You might think I am spouting nonsense, and I am sure someone will tell me so in a rude and cocksure manner. But that is how it seems to me. How else to explain the feeling of lightness and unburdening when letting go of some possession or other that has been sitting around, unused, for years.

A year ago I decided that I had "too many" lenses. Not that there is anyone to whom I needed to justify having them. I had lenses to cover just about any photo-opportunity that came my way (everything but a Tilt-Shift lens) but whenever I headed out with a camera I hated having to choose amongst 6 primes and 3 zooms.

Many people, maybe most, would never have such a problem. Either they'd be decisive or they'd not be bothered by it. But it bothered me. Perhaps it is a hangover from when I started to take photography seriously, longer ago than I like to be reminded. Back then a standard set of lenses was 35, 50, 135 primes.

So:

I cut down to: a 24-70 zoom that is only f/4, but is weather sealed, has brilliant IS, and has a decent Macro mode; a fast (f/1.4) 50; and the 135 f/2 (which becomes a 189 f/2.8 with a 1.4x extender). Now the only decision I need make before leaving the house is whether I need either of the primes alongside the zoom.

Of course it depends on what you want to photograph. If I suddenly got interested in photographing birds or football games I'd be buying at least one one of those lenses back. But in real life I have not yet missed any of the 6 lenses that are going to new homes.

There is something to be said for having just what you need, and no more.
 
Last edited:
WryCuda said:
JulesH said:
Every time my husband complains about the lenses, I remind him that my previous horse related hobby cost much much more.
Click to expand...
Another way of rationalising your various purchases is to have a friend with an expensive hobby.

The same day that I bought my D7100 at full retail price (it was the only one in town, just before Christmas), my wife visited a friend whose husband, bless him, had just bought a $16,000 road bike.
Click to expand...
That's on the high side. Maybe bikes are more in Australia, or maybe it was a custom. So it's sort of like buying a Leica.

The other pricy thing about bicycling is that the accessories are numerous and expensive (sort of like photography). Like you can get $800 Swiss bike shorts. They're supposed to be good. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I spend lots more on bicycling than I do on photography. I enjoy both pursuits equally but not simultaneously.
 
Leonard Migliore said:
WryCuda said:
Another way of rationalising your various purchases is to have a friend with an expensive hobby.

The same day that I bought my D7100 at full retail price (it was the only one in town, just before Christmas), my wife visited a friend whose husband, bless him, had just bought a $16,000 road bike.
Click to expand...
That's on the high side. Maybe bikes are more in Australia, or maybe it was a custom. So it's sort of like buying a Leica.

The other pricy thing about bicycling is that the accessories are numerous and expensive (sort of like photography). Like you can get $800 Swiss bike shorts. They're supposed to be good. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I spend lots more on bicycling than I do on photography. I enjoy both pursuits equally but not simultaneously.
Click to expand...
It's a Bianchi that wouldn't be out of place in Le Tour.

Recent news is that the addition of a Campagnolo electronic gear-set for the Bianchi cost more than two of my most expensive lenses.
 
WryCuda said:
Leonard Migliore said:
WryCuda said:
Another way of rationalising your various purchases is to have a friend with an expensive hobby.

The same day that I bought my D7100 at full retail price (it was the only one in town, just before Christmas), my wife visited a friend whose husband, bless him, had just bought a $16,000 road bike.
Click to expand...
That's on the high side. Maybe bikes are more in Australia, or maybe it was a custom. So it's sort of like buying a Leica.

The other pricy thing about bicycling is that the accessories are numerous and expensive (sort of like photography). Like you can get $800 Swiss bike shorts. They're supposed to be good. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I spend lots more on bicycling than I do on photography. I enjoy both pursuits equally but not simultaneously.
Click to expand...
It's a Bianchi that wouldn't be out of place in Le Tour.

Recent news is that the addition of a Campagnolo electronic gear-set for the Bianchi cost more than two of my most expensive lenses.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing (to me at any rate) about this comparison is how familiar it is to photography.

A top cyclist on an ordinary town bike will outperform the rest of us no matter what fancy, lightweight, technologically up to the minute bike we happen to be riding.
 
Thomas Rose said:
WryCuda said:
It's a Bianchi that wouldn't be out of place in Le Tour.

Recent news is that the addition of a Campagnolo electronic gear-set for the Bianchi cost more than two of my most expensive lenses.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing (to me at any rate) about this comparison is how familiar it is to photography.

A top cyclist on an ordinary town bike will outperform the rest of us no matter what fancy, lightweight, technologically up to the minute bike we happen to be riding.
Click to expand...
Part of the syndrome is "Pride of Ownership", and the cyclist concerned has been riding bikes for 70+ years, and the Bianchi is part of his bucket list, I guess.

I'm an occasional cyclist, and I must admit that I was astounded to learn that such items as electronic gear-sets were available. Manual derailleur gears are so effective that it hardly seems necessary to spend $3000 for the electronic version.

Returning to photography, I managed some of my best shots with an entry-level DSLR, but there's no resisting GAS, is there?
 
Another "photographer"? I don't think I've ever claimed to be a photographer, I just like fooling around with cameras, lenses, and taking the occasional snap.

The OP has a Nikon D7200, so already has a few choices about less intrusive camera bodies in the D3*00 and D5*00 series. He/she is also missing probably the most petite lens to go with a Nikon DSLR, the DX 35/1.8. But they're all still DSLRs.

Nikon already do much smaller cameras - but not ones that will take the lenses listed. And over in Nikon world, there are discussions about a new Nikon mirrorless camera that will take the Nikon F-mount lenses - with or without an adapter. Who knows.

The point I was trying to make was that the OP should maybe think about a different camera to add an extra dimension - what I didn't say was that that could be facilitated by selling a lens or two (or three) from the current line up.
 
Thomas Rose said:
Of course there is nothing inherently wrong about owning any number of lenses. Everyone has their reasons.

But surplus possessions, not only camera lenses, have a cost. Not only do they need to be stored and protected, and maintained, but they also seem to drain some of our attention, leaving less for things we care about more. You might think I am spouting nonsense, and I am sure someone will tell me so in a rude and cocksure manner. But that is how it seems to me. How else to explain the feeling of lightness and unburdening when letting go of some possession or other that has been sitting around, unused, for years.

A year ago I decided that I had "too many" lenses. Not that there is anyone to whom I needed to justify having them. I had lenses to cover just about any photo-opportunity that came my way (everything but a Tilt-Shift lens) but whenever I headed out with a camera I hated having to choose amongst 6 primes and 3 zooms.

Many people, maybe most, would never have such a problem. Either they'd be decisive or they'd not be bothered by it. But it bothered me. Perhaps it is a hangover from when I started to take photography seriously, longer ago than I like to be reminded. Back then a standard set of lenses was 35, 50, 135 primes.

So:

I cut down to: a 24-70 zoom that is only f/4, but is weather sealed, has brilliant IS, and has a decent Macro mode; a fast (f/1.4) 50; and the 135 f/2 (which becomes a 189 f/2.8 with a 1.4x extender). Now the only decision I need make before leaving the house is whether I need either of the primes alongside the zoom.

Of course it depends on what you want to photograph. If I suddenly got interested in photographing birds or football games I'd be buying at least one one of those lenses back. But in real life I have not yet missed any of the 6 lenses that are going to new homes.

There is something to be said for having just what you need, and no more.
Click to expand...
The bold here is the salient point of what mine and yardcoyote's discussion is/was--with the added aspect of limited at-home storage space and how that affects your relationship with a significant other.

In my case, both my wife and I have hobbies that are predisposed for the collection of no-longer-used stuff. Hence, we have the agreement of the cycle-in/cycle-out policy. If you're going to get something new that completely relegates the old to an unused state: don't hoard it; get rid of it. It was the case with my old non-VR 70-300: the 200-500 completely superseded it's usage...so why keep it when it won't be used anymore?

Plus, with the ability to rent lenses nowadays, anything that someone dabbles in but doesn't shoot primarily can still be done without a purchase and without the lens collecting dust, you know? I personally don't do enough architecture to justify a tilt-shift, so if I decided I needed one for a one-off I'd just rent one.

Right now for I have lenses that all see use: my ancient 28-100, my nifty 50, my 105 Macro, and my 200-500. There's little outside of those that I have the desire to shoot, so if I replace one, they'd be cycled out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cutterpup
Thinking of rehoming the D7200 and dx lenses, on fence.
2
Replies
25
Views
78K
Plankowner110
P
cutterpup
New autofocus issue Z50, FTZ, Tamron lens
Replies
4
Views
17K
cutterpup
cutterpup
E
  • Question Question
Lenses & Tips for Winter in Iceland (a7cr)
Replies
0
Views
45K
eyrie_algebra
E
T
  • Question Question
D7200 - cheap portrait lens
Replies
17
Views
4K
Cycletourer
C
A
Quandary on new lens for wildlife photography
2 3
Replies
44
Views
48K
Antony John
A

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top