RoamingScott wrote:
Anecdotally, I often notice that those that own the house produce the more banal, inconsistent, less interesting work vs those that have a carefully curated of just enough glass to meet their needs.
It's taken me a while to settle into a gear cabinet that precisely meets my needs but I'm 95% there with under a dozen lenses for a mix of full format, medium format, and 35mm bodies. I don't ever like hemming and hawing over which lens to grab for any one use case. Less is WAY more.
I know I've cut down on my lenses. I'm down to two for my Canon r7. I have six for my Nikon Z5II and could sell one or two of them. For Sony I have just three, but maybe add one more at the end of the year. I want to live with the three for a while and make sure I need anything more, not just make sure the Sony can do anything the Nikon can. I do have both teleconverters for my x100VI, but could maybe sell the WCL. The Sony a7cII could end up sending the Fujifilm to be sold. The only problem is I keep coming back to x100 and Leica Q series cameras.
ronno wrote:
It would be interesting in threads like this for people to post links to their work.
Might get a sense of how much benefit there is to having 20 lenses, rather than, say, 2 or 3 lenses.
As posted earlier, I think I own around 38 lenses across various mounts. A lot of duplicates in the 35-55 range (I think six or seven 50mm lenses across F mount, Z mount, AF and MF..)
I obviously disagree with the notion that people with more lenses generally take worse pictures, but there’s definitely a group of people who focus on collecting and on getting „perfect lenses“ and covering everything from 10-600mm, and don’t take many picture with them and/or just random boring pictures.
If you look at the work of some large format photographers, or some Leica shooters, then all you really need is a 35mm and a 50mm anyway
I've never considered a lens as a collectible. Maybe I just don't have enough money for it...
And I've never bought a lens just to try it out.
I just don't have enough money for it...You always lose money when selling it.
I've always weighed all the pros and cons before buying it.
I've been thinking about buying some lenses for many years, reading forums for a long time, looking at sample photos and seeing a photo that caught my attention, I always thought: can I take the same photo?
At the moment, I have the following "collection":
Sigma 17/4. A lightweight, compact lens with a great picture for a reasonable price.
Nocton 21/1.4 I've always dreamed of it. I really missed a fast lens for shooting portraits in tight spaces.
Loxia 25/2.4 Here, for me, the most important thing is the color from the camera, rich, dense... And the sun stars. And the ability to shoot from a close distance.
Thypoch Simera 28mm f1.4 Bokeh comes first. No matter how colorful the background is, everything will always be smooth, soft, and not distracting from the main thing. I also took it for shooting full-length portraits without distortion in the surroundings in tight places.
Nokton 40/1.2 se. Actually, it's because of it that I switched to full frame. The only lens that everyone likes. Absolutely. Sharpness at open, chromatic aberrations, vignette. Everything suits me. I turn off the profile when processing photos.
Sigma 65/2 This is the latest and longest focal length lens. I bought it to have, I can't see the picture well with long focal length lenses. Excellent sharpness at open. I rarely shoot with it.
Whats most important to me is that a lens must be suitable for whatever subject you usually shoot with that lens. With lenses there is a zero sum situation where adding one lens to the camera bag means removing one or more other lenses or flash units.
It would be interesting to add a 16/1.8 but I expect usage to be low.
The 50-150 is also interesting lens but the cost is high and the expected utility is moderate. It will also make my kit heavier, and the 70-200 is better for video because it has OSS.
% usage ranked out of 5
Current:
16-35/4G (5)
24GM (4)
35GM (5)
70-200GMii (3)
00demontver00 wrote:
I've never considered a lens as a collectible. Maybe I just don't have enough money for it...
And I've never bought a lens just to try it out.
I just don't have enough money for it...You always lose money when selling it.
I've always weighed all the pros and cons before buying it.
I've been thinking about buying some lenses for many years, reading forums for a long time, looking at sample photos and seeing a photo that caught my attention, I always thought: can I take the same photo?
The forum does not allow inserting images into the text, so the photos are in the order as the lenses are described.
At the moment, I have the following "collection":
Sigma 17/4. A lightweight, compact lens with a great picture for a reasonable price.
Nocton 21/1.4 I've always dreamed of it. I really missed a fast lens for shooting portraits in tight spaces.
Loxia 25/2.4 Here, for me, the most important thing is the color from the camera, rich, dense... And the sun stars. And the ability to shoot from a close distance.
Thypoch Simera 28mm f1.4 Bokeh comes first. No matter how colorful the background is, everything will always be smooth, soft, and not distracting from the main thing. I also took it for shooting full-length portraits without distortion in the surroundings in tight places.
Nocton 40/1.2 se. Actually, it's because of it that I switched to full frame. The only lens that everyone likes. Absolutely. Sharpness at open, chromatic aberrations, vignette. Everything suits me. I turn off the profile when processing photos.
Sigma 65/2 This is the latest and longest focal length lens. I bought it to have, I can't see the picture well with long focal length lenses. Excellent sharpness at open. I rarely shoot with it.
Re: "The forum does not allow inserting images into the text" - there are examples of how to do this, and how to control the size of posted images in the this post (and through the rest of that thread): https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1891396/0#16754740
I hope this helps!
