p.1 #1 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Quick background - I purchased a Nikon D80 DSLR back in 2006, and over the years, have had the fortune of owning and using D750, D850, D5, D6, D500, Z8, Z9, Z6, Z7 and Z6ii, and a bunch of Nikon F mount and Z mount lenses. I moved to Sony late last year, and currently use A1 M2, and 16-35mm f2.8GM2, 20mm f1.8G, 35mm f1.4GM, 50-150mm f2GM, 85mm f1.4GM2 and 90mm f2.8G. I am a serious hobbyist and apart from family and travel photos, I do a bit of wildlife photography (instagram handle: sandywildife).
With a history of irrational GAS related purchases, I am doing my best to manage temptations more rationally this time around - temptations currently haunting me are: Sony 28-70 f2GM, Sony 300mm f2.8GM, and eventually Sony 600mm f4GM (when new version is released eventually). I followed a scientific process of analyzing the FL's of photos since 2006, and summary is attached in the graphics below.
If you were in my shoes, what would you do, would it be different from what I have concluded. Thanks for your time to read this and for responding to those who do.
PS: I was fun to do the analysis of FL's and very insightful for me.
p.1 #3 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Another thing to think about is focal length usage by other people vs what you do. For birds, obviously longer can be better. If you are more wildlife and less birds, I can heartily recommend the 300mm with and without the teleconverters. It is a fantastic lens and you should see incredible performance with it using your A1 II. It is also a joy to use and easy to work with. It is also a focal length that you do not currently have, so no overlap.
Of course, if it is simply GAS, you might want to just wait and see if your yearning for another lens wanes.
p.1 #6 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Thanks! They’re long gone. Z9 and 600mm were the last to go, I guess I just got bored of Nikon after 20 years, plus their top end bodies are always larger than Sony’s. Better wildlife lenses though across a wide price range!
EB-1 wrote:
Keep your Nikon gear for the wildlife.
p.1 #7 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Well, birding season starts here in India in October and I do mead a long lens, so that one lens needs to be decided upon in the next two months
Abuttolph wrote:
Another thing to think about is focal length usage by other people vs what you do. For birds, obviously longer can be better. If you are more wildlife and less birds, I can heartily recommend the 300mm with and without the teleconverters. It is a fantastic lens and you should see incredible performance with it using your A1 II. It is also a joy to use and easy to work with. It is also a focal length that you do not currently have, so no overlap.
Of course, if it is simply GAS, you might want to just wait and see if your yearning for another lens wanes....Show more →
p.1 #8 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
I applaud your data-driven approach. Unfortunately I cannot offer any advice because I am not a birder and anything longer than 85mm is an uncharted territory for me.
However... Looking at your first chart got me thinking: have you tried grouping the results by focal length instead of lenses? A few years back, I did that and realized I was not zooming! So, I ditched my 16-35mm and 24-70mm combo for a lighter two-prime setup — either 28mm + 50mm or 24mm + 35mm. Sounds counterintuitive going from two lenses to four, but I only carry one or two at a time, and it’s way less bulky and I haven't felt any reduction of flexibility.
p.1 #9 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Short answer - yes I did.
Long answer - the data is across 27,000 photos I have kept in the last 19 years. I have not only adjusted for FL but also for APS-C so these truly represent full frame equivalent. I guess I was having a not so busy Monday !
I love primes and in the past, have had Nikon 50 f1.2S, Nikon 85 f1.2S and Nikon 135 f1.8S, and all of their f1.4 primes from F mount, so I totally understand your decision to carry primes. Just trying to create a kit where I can carry 2 lenses and 2 bodies and be done - hence 2 X A1 II + 16-35 + 50-150. And for wildlife eventually 2 X A1 II + 300 f2.8 + 600mm f4 (someday when Sony releases next generation). The 50-150 is just phenomenal albeit heavy
old-gregg wrote:
I applaud your data-driven approach. Unfortunately I cannot offer any advice because I am not a birder and anything longer than 85mm is an uncharted territory for me.
However... Looking at your first chart got me thinking: have you tried grouping the results by focal length instead of lenses? A few years back, I did that and realized I was not zooming! So, I ditched my 16-35mm and 24-70mm combo for a lighter two-prime setup — either 28mm + 50mm or 24mm + 35mm. Sounds counterintuitive going from two lenses to four, but I only carry one or two at a time, and it’s way less bulky and I haven't felt any reduction of flexibility....Show more →
p.1 #10 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
GAS comes from people trying to fill a void, a void better filled with other endeavours that could have fulfilling outcomes (healthier and cheaper also). If you are hoping to do birding and wildlife photos, and require those lenses to do it effectively, then go buy them. Doesn’t sound like money is an issue.
But if the idea of birding is fueling the GAS (“Hey maybe I’ll try that now!”) then I would recommend a pause. Challenge yourself with the gear you currently own. Play around with flash and portraits of family and pets.
GAS comes from a void. When you’re busy it leaves you alone.
p.1 #12 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
My 2 cents; Although the A1 can shoot at 30fps, have you tried using just 15 fps ?
The reason I ask is that if you can get acceptable/consistent images at 15fps then it opens up the possibility of using 3rd party lenses such as the Sigma 300-600 f4.
Pair that with the 300m f2.8 from Sony if you want something lighter with more fps and it will still cost less than the 600mm f4 from Sony.
p.1 #13 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
I have found that generally speaking, past performance is an indication of future behavior in regards to GAS. So most people eventually submit to their temptations to acquire new gear even if they initially resist! That said, a fewer number of people do change over time and become wiser. You may be one of them.
If it were me, I would have probably started with a not so expensive lens such as 200-600mm lens which is already a great lens. Time will tell me if the lens is limiting me and I need to upgrade. Most likely I do not need a faster lens under good lighting conditions.
In any case, I don't shoot birds so thankfully, I don't need those super heavy, super expensive lenses, lol.
p.1 #14 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
I try to do retrospectives like this every now and then regarding my gear also. Usually looking at what % each lens was used on trips and which lenses my keepers came from.
I didn't see anything regarding aperture in your analysis, which might have you leaning into zooms and devaluing the f1.4-8 primes you had in the past. Zooms can be great, but sometimes 2 primes can be a good substitute. I tend to keep both options myself and select depending on my travel or situational needs. Working pros tend to have consistent use cases and needs, but as a hobbyist I find I need to mix it up.
You mention the 16-35 GMII and 50-150 GM, but have you considered similar alternatives that are less expensive that would let you also keep your primes? The Tamron 16-30 + 35-150 would cover the same range and you can hang onto an 85/1.4 + 20/1.8 or whatever. Or lean into wildlife and get that 300GM you want.
p.1 #15 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
I also am waiting for a newer version of the 400G and 600G from Sony
I was able to purchase a 300G with both TC's and they both work very well on the 300G.
I also have the 100-400 and the 200-600 which I haven't used since getting the 300G
You may want to look at the 400-800 Sony if the light is good in your area.
I have a pair of A1's.
p.1 #16 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Your first chart confuses me. 62% of your images of the past 19 years were taken with a lens that has only existed for 3 months? I like data. But that sounds heavily skewed. Is that because you've been shooting at 50fps using that lens and you're counting every frame captured? This kind of data is more useful if it is based on images that have been culled or rated. Are you counting all frames of a burst series when you're only keeping one for editing or printing?
p.1 #17 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Blasphemy on a Sony board warning.
I’m slightly regretting the 300GM 2x TC purchase for my A1 II and am rather smitten by the OM-1 150-400 Pro combo.
The 300GM is great but I hate mounting/dismounting TCs.
Fastish glass with zoom flexibility is really useful. I really hope Sony makes a faster tele zoom at some point. The A1 II is soooooo good and deserves a faster zoom than the 200-600 / 400-800 pair imo.
OP - you’ve got a lot of great fast glass now. Personally I’m loving the 20-70 for a light daily lens.
p.1 #18 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
liggy wrote:
Blasphemy on a Sony board warning.
I’m slightly regretting the 300GM 2x TC purchase for my A1 II and am rather smitten by the OM-1 150-400 Pro combo.
The 300GM is great but I hate mounting/dismounting TCs.
Fastish glass with zoom flexibility is really useful. I really hope Sony makes a faster tele zoom at some point. The A1 II is soooooo good and deserves a faster zoom than the 200-600 / 400-800 pair imo.
OP - you’ve got a lot of great fast glass now. Personally I’m loving the 20-70 for a light daily lens.
Nice contrast to the big, heavy fast zooms. ...Show more →
"OP - you’ve got a lot of great fast glass now. Personally I’m loving the 20-70 for a light daily lens." This struck me, too. Besides focal length, can one pull the aperture usage? (Not so much on nature/wildlife, it's a different use/gear situation)
How much is being done at the wider/widest apertures as opposed to stopping down some, or maybe several stops? There may be overlap, lens A has some overlap with Lens B, one is f2, the other f2.8 at the same focal length. Lots of f2 and less f2.8 might say something different than lots of f4 or f5.6. Or f8.
p.1 #19 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
Craig Gillette wrote:
"OP - you’ve got a lot of great fast glass now. Personally I’m loving the 20-70 for a light daily lens." This struck me, too. Besides focal length, can one pull the aperture usage? (Not so much on nature/wildlife, it's a different use/gear situation)
How much is being done at the wider/widest apertures as opposed to stopping down some, or maybe several stops? There may be overlap, lens A has some overlap with Lens B, one is f2, the other f2.8 at the same focal length. Lots of f2 and less f2.8 might say something different than lots of f4 or f5.6. Or f8.
p.1 #20 · My attempt to cure GAS with data + Advice requested
I’d also recommend getting the 200-600g. It takes the same 95mm filters as your 50-150. It covers a most useful range for wildlife and birds, while still being a good landscape lens, and it nicely compliments the focal lengths that you have, while still being carryable (if heavy and large compared to most lenses). If you use it and find yourself wanting more fl than you can get by cropping, you can get the 1.4 tc and see how you like it at around the 800-900 range. That will also let you know how you feel about using teleconverters, and it will allow you to gather more data. If you find yourself light gathering or background separation, then you have options to get that with the primes or the sigma 300-600. You can get the 200-600 used at a good price, and sell it for about what you paid for it, so if it doesn’t work for you, you can get your money back and invest that in a newer/more expensive lens.
