fotografur wrote:
I find it interesting that "if money was no object" most of the kits chosen are realistically achievable.
Which is a good thing.
One thing that makes most of these kits realistically achievable is the 3-4 lens limit. I would probably say for most photographers, if they're keeping to 3 lenses, they're probably going to go with a wide zoom, a standard zoom, and a telephoto zoom. Which is why combos like the 14-30mm f4, 24-120mm f4, and 180-600mm f6.3 or 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, and 70-200mm f2.8 have been such popular setups. I can't think of any photographers that I have met that have exotic glass like a 600mm f4, and don't have the more standard zooms and primes already covered.
3 lenses, or even 4, seem too little, but if I could go for a kit within these constraints, it would have been the Nikon Z9, Nikon Zf, Sony 12-24/2.8 GM (adapted), Nikon 24-120/4 S and Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S.
Though that'd mean jettisoning both the hard-won Laowa 10mm f/2.8 lens and my much beloved Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS lens, AND abandoning any fast primes that I like so much (I have the Tamron 45mm & 85mm that I love, and the Canon 24mm f/1.4L II that I, well, find uses for).
If money was no object, I would give it all for someone to craft me up a mirrorless body with D700 sensor, tilting screen like the z8, all the menu options of a modern Z body, and NO ospdaf.
My 600mm PF and 800mm PF along with the 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100-400mm Z lenses would not change. The weight and need for a tripod and gimbal or video head are key considerations. For still photography not needing a tripod increases my mobility considerably as I first discovered after buying the 500mm PF lens that was a revelation.
The Canon 50-1000mm is a great lens but too heavy for me to haul around and so I use the Sigma 60-600mm lens instead that is much much lighter.
I am tempted to buy a RED Komodo but for now I need to become proficient with my new ZR camera.
If I can cheat a bit with Option 2 with a fixed lens, and keep my iPhone 17 pro max of course, then my current most-often carried hiking kit is probably my choice as a hybrid shooter that equally enjoys video:
Nikon z8, z 180-600
Fuji GFX 100sii, gf 80
Sony RX1R III (35mm fixed Zeiss Sonnar)
It's really *time* that is limited, and given more time I would love to get into more specialized Nikkor super tele primes like the z 600 f/4 tc to chase low probability, high reward subjects with adventure travel, but perhaps that all needs to wait until early retirement. Hopefully the z8 ii exists by then, and a 400-800 S zoom.
fnzmf25 wrote:
Wonder why both 400 2.8 and 600 pf? Do you use the 600 pf with 1.4x often?
Wonder if you considered the sigma 500 f5.6 which isn’t pf.
What’s the typical use case for 70-200?
The 400 for the 2.8 and the TC. The 600 pf for when I need the lighter weight and mobility. I’m often in river bottoms shooting in awkward positions where the pf lens has been a blessing for my bad shoulders. I love the 70-200 for “animalscape” shots of larger animals.
I hadn’t considered the Sigma. That extra 100mm was calling me! I don’t have a 1.4x
DWOfPaul wrote:
One thing that makes most of these kits realistically achievable is the 3-4 lens limit. I would probably say for most photographers, if they're keeping to 3 lenses, they're probably going to go with a wide zoom, a standard zoom, and a telephoto zoom. Which is why combos like the 14-30mm f4, 24-120mm f4, and 180-600mm f6.3 or 14-24mm f2.8, 24-70mm f2.8, and 70-200mm f2.8 have been such popular setups. I can't think of any photographers that I have met that have exotic glass like a 600mm f4, and don't have the more standard zooms and primes already covered.
I don't know any photographers that did not or do not have a 800/5.6 or 6.3, 600/4, 500/4 or similar big tele.
It's true that some don't any more since as seniors and downgrade to the OM 150-400 or 180/200-600 due to physical limitations. But under 60 YO on full frame/FX I'd still expect a 600/4 nowadays. And we still see strong 70+ users with big teles.
EB-1 wrote:
I don't know any photographers that did not or do not have a 800/5.6 or 6.3, 600/4, 500/4 or similar big tele.
It's true that some don't any more since as seniors and downgrade to the OM 150-400 or 180/200-600 due to physical limitations. But under 60 YO on full frame/FX I'd still expect a 600/4 nowadays. And we still see strong 70+ users with big teles.
EBH
Maybe it's a location thing. Around me, most photographers are out using lenses like 200-600mm or 150-600mm. A few people will use smaller primes like the 500mm PF and 400mm f4.5, and a handful of people are using exotics such as a 400mm f2.8 or 600mm f4. Intrestingly for the most part, the people using the extics apear to be 50 and older. My gut is that either it's because they got into photography when the exotics were the only good option for wildlife photos, and / or they're at the point in their life where they have more disposable income for hobbies.
Well, the older 600/4s were not close to $20K either and there are plenty of DINKs around.
I don't use big teles in the States very much. Most trips I go on there are 50s-70s and I'm the only one with any rental gear.
But the thread is "If money wasn't the issue kit."
