Should amatuer buy pro lens?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,967
Re: Ski much?
1

ZX11 wrote:

MediaArchivist wrote:

I have friends that ski. A lot. They spend a lot of money skiing, and have no delusions of ever making any money from it.

Some of them have quite a bit of "pro" gear.

But skiing is fun and gets the heart racing. Photography only gets the heart racing if the tripod falls over.

Then don't spend money on photography gear. I don't ski, so I don't spend money on ski gear, but I spend money on my bicycle and if I could afford the best gear used by the pros then I would happily buy it.

rochester21 Contributing Member • Posts: 813
Wrong title

I see the question here is more about buyer's remorse than about pro lens.

If you can afford a 2400 dollar lens, then i guess you have to buy it.

The only real mistake here would be to buy the lens, hate it, and then sell it for a huge loss or keep it without using it.

As long as you use it long and hard, the cost per picture taken is dimished, this way you can say you got your money's worth.

So what i do is to simply divide the cost of my gear by the number of pictures i get from it. If the math says i spend around 25 cents per picture, then that's not terribly expensive, is it? Makes sense to me.

Tony10 Regular Member • Posts: 144
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?
1

Look at the second hand market, it is flooded with good quality kit purchased new by GAS types who as a result of watching pro's on YouTube thought they could produce the same kind of work, some did but many, due to lack of drive determination or talent, did not. Subsequently you can get some excellent pro level lenses at a good price especially if you go for older versions which are more than adequate for what you need.

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,967
Should an amateur buy a pro lens? Maybe.

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

You might do better to buy a 70-300 with a smaller aperture which may have more reach (it might not either, because reach is largely a function of resolution), and it will take up less room in your camera bag. However, the fast AF and longer reach of a 70-200 (I have an f/2.8 that I sometimes put a 1.4x teleconverter on) opens up a lot of photographic opportunities:

AwesomeIan Senior Member • Posts: 2,118
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?
2

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

A return on investment doesn't have to be monetary. In fact if you buy that lens and take thousands of pictures and not sell a single one it still might be a good investment. I think at the end of the day only you will know if it is worth the price. I will ask this. Do you need a constant f2.8 aperture? If not you can probably find an alternative that will meet your standards without breaking the bank.

-- hide signature --
 AwesomeIan's gear list:AwesomeIan's gear list
Nikon D500 Pentax K-1 Pentax smc D-FA 100mm F2.8 Macro WR Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD HD Pentax D FA 24-70mm F2.8 ED SDM WR +7 more
threw the lens
threw the lens Senior Member • Posts: 1,109
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

I think you're right to be concerned about buying the Sony from new. First, Sony lenses are a little overprice compared to other brands. Second, you could make big savings with other brands and used equipment. Though it's even more important then to know how to test it.

Isn't there a Tamron G2 available for your system? They have nice long warranties.

ZX11
ZX11 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,826
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

lilBuddha wrote:

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

Yes, I get it and I do make money from my photography. Before I did, when I was first getting into photography seriously, I heard the siren song of pro gear.

Evaluate your budget. You've saved the money, so you've done this, I'd imagine.

Evaluate your needs. Do you need pro features? Are your images insufficient in a way that a better/different lens would change them?

Evaluate the lenses. Pro does not automatically mean better. It typically means wider apertures, weather sealing and a rugged build. But it does not always mean better image quality.

Evaluate your images. This is part of step two, really, but benefits more specific evaluation. tl;dr: if the technical quality of your images is sufficient to your needs, then you do not need a new lens.

Reading lens reviews, and the comments from mental folks such as we here, one would think that ultimate sharpness and such are the qualifiers of a good image. They are not. If that matters to you, and your current images do not live up to your expectation, then a lens with those characteristics is something to consider. But there is much more to photography than that. So, what matters to you?

Excellent things to consider when browsing new gear.

-- hide signature --

"Very funny, Scotty! Now beam me down my clothes."
"He's dead, Jim! You grab his tri-corder. I'll get his wallet."

 ZX11's gear list:ZX11's gear list
Canon EOS 700D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
MinAZ
MinAZ Veteran Member • Posts: 4,762
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

Do you plan on going serious into photography in the future? There is a saying, that you only cry once.

Marek M Contributing Member • Posts: 960
No, bad idea

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

The very reason that you felt you needed to ask makes it clear that it is a bad idea for you.

Others may have that problem as well.

Mark_A
Mark_A Forum Pro • Posts: 14,853
I can relate to this
2

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

I can relate to this, I have bought the best lenses I could justify to myself. At one point I was doing product photography for money and during that period I could write off equipment costs against tax. But still I didn't go crazy.

What has happened is that I have one step lower than the best lenses.

For example, I wanted to buy a Nikon 85mm for portraits. Used the f1.8 was £250 and the f1.4 which has a great reputation was £550 .. I bought the f1.8 and I have been happy with it.

Everyone has to find the level of expense versus quality that they feel comfortable with.

Mark_A

pforsell
pforsell Senior Member • Posts: 2,261
If you need to save, then don't
2

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

If you need to save money to buy some toy like a lens, then don't.

-- hide signature --

Peter

 pforsell's gear list:pforsell's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D2X Nikon D3X Nikon D3S Nikon D4S +22 more
p0ppyman
p0ppyman Contributing Member • Posts: 608
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

Only you can decide.

Look at it as an investment. An investment is the distribution of monies with an expectation of a benefit in return.

Return does not have to be monetary. Return can be pure enjoyment. Return can be an opportunity to learn something new about the optical quality of lenses. Return can be anything you want it to be that provides some benefit in return for the money you distribute..

Someone already gave you a great idea when they said rent one. Do that and see for yourself if you get any benefit from the lens. If yes that may just be the return that makes your investment right for you.

-- hide signature --

Bill Poplawski (Photographer)
San Mateo, CA 94402
~ there is beauty in every face ~
https://www.billpoplawskiphotography.com

 p0ppyman's gear list:p0ppyman's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-T1 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Tokina AT-X Pro 100mm f/2.8 Macro Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +8 more
SoCalWill
SoCalWill Senior Member • Posts: 6,299
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

Wait for the Tamron

-- hide signature --

Digital Camera and Adobe Photoshop user since 1999.
Adobe Lightroom is my adult coloring book.

 SoCalWill's gear list:SoCalWill's gear list
Sony RX100 III Nikon D810 Sigma 50-500mm F4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Apple iPhone XS Max
ToxicTabasco
ToxicTabasco Senior Member • Posts: 2,440
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

Thank you for your inquiry.  This is a revelation.  Most people ask "What lens should I get", but you already know what lens you want, but have a road block pulling the trigger.

There is no rule or law that says only pros should have the ubiquitous 70-200 f/2.8 lens of any camera brand.  It is one of the sharpest most useful zoom lens designs ever made.

If you're getting the lens just to have a lens to fill that gap, or based on other's recommendations, or have a psychological need that needs to be satisfied, then no, you don't need it.

BUT, if you shoot or plan to shoot that range at f/2.8 for outdoor portraits, action/sports, indoor or night concerts, close up wildlife, 4K video, fine art landscapes, etc... then you should pay the cost, and use the lens' main feature of it's high quality optics, zoom range and big aperture for low light.

 ToxicTabasco's gear list:ToxicTabasco's gear list
Nikon D5500 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9
(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 6,680
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

I had this problem when I was a working pro and had to justify expenses to my business partner and accountant.

Now I'm retired and have the freedom to buy whatever my heart desires as long as I can afford it.

The nice thing about being an amateur is not having to justify a purchase beyond wanting whatever has caught my fancy.

Rolen Regular Member • Posts: 169
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

If you had you the money, you wouldn't need our advice.

doady Senior Member • Posts: 1,531
I haven't bought a new camera since 2005

I haven't bought a new camera since 2005 because I feel need to realize the full potential of my current camera first. And "full potential" doesn't necessarily mean "money making potential". I don't think you should let money determine what you do with photography so much. There's more to the value of a camera or lens than just the monetary value. You should think about what other value such a lens might have for you and your photography.

edit: oops, sorry, I meant to reply to OP

 doady's gear list:doady's gear list
Olympus C-7070 Wide Zoom Phase One Capture One Pro
MikeyBugs95
MikeyBugs95 Regular Member • Posts: 317
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

imperial wrote:

I can't convince myself enough to buy the Sony 70-200mm gm lens because of the price. I have saved up money for it, but i can't get over the fact that i'm just a amateur photographer and none of these photos I take are going to pay off the equipment i have purchased. Do any of you get this problem?

I'm pretty much an amateur having gotten into this hobby (for me) less than 2 years ago. I use some pro/semi-pro lenses because I was able to afford them at the time I bought them and because I'd rather use lenses that I can grow into than keep cycling through low end lenses that I either don't like or will outgrow in a shortish amount of time. Same with camera bodies. I'd rather have a camera body I can grow into and feel like there's always something more I can learn about it and how to use it than a low end consumer body (plus I like the larger size and feel of the heavier metal bodies - apparently my hands are slightly too large for the Pentax K-70 yet my hands aren't large by any measure).

-- hide signature --

It's a pretty simple task of 3D modeling something. It's getting it to fit that takes most of the time!

 MikeyBugs95's gear list:MikeyBugs95's gear list
Pentax K-3 II Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Pentax smc DA* 16-50mm F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited +8 more
Paul B Jones
Paul B Jones Veteran Member • Posts: 3,031
Re: Should amatuer buy pro lens?

What does amateur or pro have to do with it? Buy the best lens you can afford.

-- hide signature --
 Paul B Jones's gear list:Paul B Jones's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV +15 more
Don Lacy
Don Lacy Senior Member • Posts: 2,031
Re: Ski much?
2

ZX11 wrote:

MediaArchivist wrote:

I have friends that ski. A lot. They spend a lot of money skiing, and have no delusions of ever making any money from it.

Some of them have quite a bit of "pro" gear.

But skiing is fun and gets the heart racing. Photography only gets the heart racing if the tripod falls over.

You need to find better subjects to photograph.

 Don Lacy's gear list:Don Lacy's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS M100 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II +11 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads