Upload & Sell: On
That might be called sacrilege but since this is a Sunday morning we should probably avoid religious discussions...
Doubtless, my decisions are shaped by my commitment to this thread, which I recognize. I'm content that not everyone is guided by the same muse. Since this is my one hobby, I feel justified in spending a bit more to stay "in the fold" so to speak. I've seen the Zenitar lens advertised and have seen photos taken with it. At a another time in my life I might have considered it as a low cost alternative but not now. If you...Show more →
Absolutely understand what you are saying. My hobby is the end result of using the tools, not the tools themselves. Just like you, I've been on the Canon side of things for a while, because at the time, those tools were the best for what I was doing. Now I am on the Nikon side, mostly because at the time I went to digital, the Nikon bodies still allowed me to use those old lenses I bought in the 1980s. However, that doesn't mean I will use those lenses exclusively.
For me, the kit I am building these days has to primarily deliver when I do landscape photography well off the highway, in a place I carry my gear to. Weight is a big concern, image quality as well. I went FX because it allows me to pack small prime MF wide angles like the 20mm f3.5 I recently bought (for $100), while it also allows me to take advantage of modern lightweight zooms like the 70-300mm without needing a sherpa team to get me to where I am headed.
I would have loved to buy a 50-300mm ED, because I still remember how I pressed my nose against the glass of the local photo shop in Germany back in the 80s, where one of these was for sale, used, for probably less than it goes for today. It was impressive, big, very heavy, and at the time too expensive. Today, I could easily pick one up, but the images this old lens will take in 2013, compared to the refurbished 70-300mm ED VR I just picked up are probably not any better, and the weight difference became the deciding factor for me to go with the plastic lens. I ma use that lens for a few years and go in a different direction, but on DX I had a 55-200mm and it served me well, so within my parameters, the AF lens made sense.
The fisheye is a specialty lens - home or while on a trip. It's probably one of those where when I pack my gear I will always go "is it really worth to carry this pound for 2 weeks?" - and based on past trips, I think I'd usually leave it behind. So the value for me is limited, even though I always loved what this lens can do, going back to watching a friend in the 90s using it as his primary "pit lane lens" in motorsports. Fantastic stuff with character, so much so that I recall some of his images 15 years later. So, I do really have reason to want that 16mm f3.5, and up to $350 is acceptable to me. Beyond that, it's really in a territory where I feel I should just save up and get the 14-24mm.
Anyway, the cool part with the MF gear is that I am still able to shoot the same 50mm f1.8 I had on my nikkormat in 1984 when I first went Nikon. I am quite sure I won't be shooting my plastic AF 70-300mm in 2042 any longer