This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Trying to avoid the 17/4
p.5 #1Trying to avoid the 17/4
I got up and for some reason am not tired (go figure) and just read this whole thread. I went through a lot of the same stuff you are describing regarding lens lust, but was actually using mine for gain. Then it mutated into also becoming a collector - I have alt gear (and some Canon too) I have barely tried more than once that still sits in my dry storage. So in the last year or so I have finally gained the resolve to trim things down and to get down to what I need and use, and am in the process of doing so now.
I had to look at myself in the mirror in order to do so to come to this realization. I can understand collecting artwork, because you can look and appreciate it, and in many cases if it is good work it will accrue in value. I can maybe even understand collecting multiple of the same musical instrument, like guitars (or anything else if you actually play them). But collecting camera gear for the sake of doing so, well, lets just say in my instance I look at some of my past purchases that have seen little to barely used use, many of which were rather pricey, as frivolous purchases of questionable intent. I now have a lot of gear to sell which I am intent on doing over the next little while, and have made a list and trimmed myself down to lenses and bodies I actually use or are now too minute in value to sell at their present worth that I will be keeping.
Not to say I won't buy anything again, 'cause I just got a fantastic deal on a floor model D700 that was flawless that comes with full warranty to compliment my D300, so now I have two, (dare I say the word on this forum) Nikon bodies. This was a good purchase, well thought out, and for good reason.
I vaguely remember being a lurker here, long before I joined, and recall you talking about selling all your gear other than one body, is that correct? Maybe remember those days, and if you really lust for this lens sell what you are not really using. Try making a list like what I did, look at your jpg's on your hard drive, and see what it is that you really tend to shoot and like. If this lens fits into that category get it, otherwise, just look at it as something that was perhaps interesting to think about, but is really now distracting you from doing more important things and is wasting your precious time.
If this long tale of my saga helps, great, if not, just move on and don't think another thing about it...
Now, I really need to try to get back to sleep for a few hours; I have a lot of things I really need to accomplish when I get up!
I had to look at myself in the mirror in order to do so to come to this realization. I can understand collecting artwork, because you can look and appreciate it, and in many cases if it is good work it will accrue in value. I can maybe even understand collecting multiple of the same musical instrument, like guitars (or anything else if you actually play them). But collecting camera gear for the sake of doing so, well, lets just say in my instance I look at some of my past purchases that have seen little to barely used use, many of which were rather pricey, as frivolous purchases of questionable intent. I now have a lot of gear to sell which I am intent on doing over the next little while, and have made a list and trimmed myself down to lenses and bodies I actually use or are now too minute in value to sell at their present worth that I will be keeping.
Not to say I won't buy anything again, 'cause I just got a fantastic deal on a floor model D700 that was flawless that comes with full warranty to compliment my D300, so now I have two, (dare I say the word on this forum) Nikon bodies. This was a good purchase, well thought out, and for good reason.
I vaguely remember being a lurker here, long before I joined, and recall you talking about selling all your gear other than one body, is that correct? Maybe remember those days, and if you really lust for this lens sell what you are not really using. Try making a list like what I did, look at your jpg's on your hard drive, and see what it is that you really tend to shoot and like. If this lens fits into that category get it, otherwise, just look at it as something that was perhaps interesting to think about, but is really now distracting you from doing more important things and is wasting your precious time.
If this long tale of my saga helps, great, if not, just move on and don't think another thing about it...
Now, I really need to try to get back to sleep for a few hours; I have a lot of things I really need to accomplish when I get up!Nov 29, 2009 at 06:06 AM
p.5 #2Trying to avoid the 17/4
Dear Sandra, are you sure we're not married? Cause you sound awfully like my wife...
Joking aside, that's my reasoning as well. Just look at the last paragraph of the OP. It's just that completely irrational lust which drive me absolutely nuts.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Joking aside, that's my reasoning as well. Just look at the last paragraph of the OP. It's just that completely irrational lust which drive me absolutely nuts.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 29, 2009 at 07:10 AM
p.5 #3Trying to avoid the 17/4
IMO the big deal for the TS-E 17 is perspective control (other than being superb lens)... ultra wide lenses give disturbing distortions even with non-architecture work.
Nov 29, 2009 at 02:21 PM
p.5 #4Trying to avoid the 17/4
Interesting thread. I am seriously looking at getting one of either the 17 or the 24, likely the latter. To fund this I have to sell some of my current lens(es). How does the swap of 35L+50L for one of these sound? I use both of these rather sparingly.
Nov 29, 2009 at 11:32 PM
p.5 #5Trying to avoid the 17/4
Well, my logic always was "Sell the lens you don't use, buy the lenses you will". However, this lens might be the first to break this rule. 
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Nov 30, 2009 at 01:13 AM
p.5 #6Trying to avoid the 17/4
I just got a hard hit from reality: My wife got fired. 
While her income was not that big in the first place, it was still an important part of our total income. So, no 17/4 for me in the foreseeable future. I'll have to make do with my 10-22. A wonderful lens by itself but it's so stationary....
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
While her income was not that big in the first place, it was still an important part of our total income. So, no 17/4 for me in the foreseeable future. I'll have to make do with my 10-22. A wonderful lens by itself but it's so stationary....
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Dec 03, 2009 at 02:24 AM
p.5 #7Trying to avoid the 17/4
Sorry to hear it, Yakim. Not a pleasant thing to go through at all...
I hope she finds something else soon, so that I can live vicariously through you and your 17/4!
I hope she finds something else soon, so that I can live vicariously through you and your 17/4!
Dec 20, 2009 at 09:33 AM
p.5 #8Trying to avoid the 17/4
sandra pix wrote:
I had to look at myself in the mirror in order to do so to come to this realization. I can understand collecting artwork, because you can look and appreciate it, and in many cases if it is good work it will accrue in value. I can maybe even understand collecting multiple of the same musical instrument, like guitars (or anything else if you actually play them). But collecting camera gear for the sake of doing so, well, lets just say in my instance I look at some of my past purchases that have seen little to barely used...Show more →
+1
A lot of folks in photo forums need to think about this.
I like to think that the goal that most here have is to "do photography." Owning lenses is not equal to doing photography. (Owning a scalpel doesn't make you a real doctor. Owning a Steinway doesn't make you a real pianist, owning a BMW doesn't make you a better driver, ...)
I'm not saying that having appropriate equipment is without value, but I am saying that allowing the acquisition of lenses and bodies to form the primary orientation to photography is an entirely different thing from being a photographer. In fact it can - and perhaps a bit too often does - become an obsession and a distraction from actual photography.
Beyond the questionable value of obsession with collecting gear to the individual who engages in the gear collection hobby rather than photography, this leads to a danger for new photographers who read forums like these. They don't yet see the gear lust for what it is, and when folks write about the ineffable perfection (or the unacceptable awfulness) of lenses X, Y, and Z they actually believe that this stuff is central to becoming a photographer.
It isn't.
I just read a thread in which a self-declared "noob" photographer who purchased his first rebel seried body a couple months ago wondered about the value of IS in a long lens. It wasn't more than a handful of posts later that people were seriously recommending - vociferously! - that this newbie rebel owner really needed to start acquiring lenses like the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, the 100-400 L IS, and various long, large-aperture prime telephotos! (All of this when the OP would probably be very happy with the EFS 55-250 lens...)
High quality lenses that provide functional value to the photographer for his/her photography certainly have their place. I own a few myself.
Dan
I had to look at myself in the mirror in order to do so to come to this realization. I can understand collecting artwork, because you can look and appreciate it, and in many cases if it is good work it will accrue in value. I can maybe even understand collecting multiple of the same musical instrument, like guitars (or anything else if you actually play them). But collecting camera gear for the sake of doing so, well, lets just say in my instance I look at some of my past purchases that have seen little to barely used...Show more →
+1
A lot of folks in photo forums need to think about this.
I like to think that the goal that most here have is to "do photography." Owning lenses is not equal to doing photography. (Owning a scalpel doesn't make you a real doctor. Owning a Steinway doesn't make you a real pianist, owning a BMW doesn't make you a better driver, ...)
I'm not saying that having appropriate equipment is without value, but I am saying that allowing the acquisition of lenses and bodies to form the primary orientation to photography is an entirely different thing from being a photographer. In fact it can - and perhaps a bit too often does - become an obsession and a distraction from actual photography.
Beyond the questionable value of obsession with collecting gear to the individual who engages in the gear collection hobby rather than photography, this leads to a danger for new photographers who read forums like these. They don't yet see the gear lust for what it is, and when folks write about the ineffable perfection (or the unacceptable awfulness) of lenses X, Y, and Z they actually believe that this stuff is central to becoming a photographer.
It isn't.
I just read a thread in which a self-declared "noob" photographer who purchased his first rebel seried body a couple months ago wondered about the value of IS in a long lens. It wasn't more than a handful of posts later that people were seriously recommending - vociferously! - that this newbie rebel owner really needed to start acquiring lenses like the EF 70-200mm f/4 IS, the 100-400 L IS, and various long, large-aperture prime telephotos! (All of this when the OP would probably be very happy with the EFS 55-250 lens...)
High quality lenses that provide functional value to the photographer for his/her photography certainly have their place. I own a few myself.
Dan
Dec 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM
p.5 #9Trying to avoid the 17/4
Nice piece Dan.
The only reason why I own TSE lenses is because I am a professional architectural photographer...if I was not that I certainly would not even consider purchasing such lenses. Same with my camera, if my clients did not require the large image size of the 5D Mark II then I would be more than fine with an 8 megapixel camera.
The only reason why I own TSE lenses is because I am a professional architectural photographer...if I was not that I certainly would not even consider purchasing such lenses. Same with my camera, if my clients did not require the large image size of the 5D Mark II then I would be more than fine with an 8 megapixel camera.
Dec 20, 2009 at 08:43 PM
p.5 #10Trying to avoid the 17/4
jabog6 wrote:
Sorry to hear it, Yakim. Not a pleasant thing to go through at all...
I hope she finds something else soon, so that I can live vicariously through you and your 17/4!
Thank you for your kind words.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Sorry to hear it, Yakim. Not a pleasant thing to go through at all...
I hope she finds something else soon, so that I can live vicariously through you and your 17/4!
Thank you for your kind words.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Dec 21, 2009 at 12:52 AM
p.5 #11Trying to avoid the 17/4
gdanmitchell wrote:
+1
A lot of folks in photo forums need to think about this.
I like to think that the goal that most here have is to "do photography." Owning lenses is not equal to doing photography. (Owning a scalpel doesn't make you a real doctor. Owning a Steinway doesn't make you a real pianist, owning a BMW doesn't make you a better driver, ...)
I'm not saying that having appropriate equipment is without value, but I am saying that allowing the acquisition of lenses and bodies to form the primary orientation to photography is an entirely different thing from being a photographer....Show more →
Well, not going to buy this because of my current financial state but luckily I found a friend who lives nearby which have it (and many other extremely expensive lenses) who simply offered: "Whenever you want, just drop by and borrow it".
I guess it's happy ending after all.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
sandra pix wrote
I had to look at myself in the mirror in order to do so to come to this realization. I can understand collecting artwork, because you can look and appreciate it, and in many cases if it is good work it will accrue in value. I can maybe even understand collecting multiple of the same musical instrument, like guitars (or anything else if you actually play them). But collecting camera gear for the sake of doing so, well, lets just say in my instance I look at some of my past purchases that have seen little to barely used use, many of which were rather pricey, as frivolous purchases of questionable intent. I now have a lot of gear to sell...A lot of folks in photo forums need to think about this.
I like to think that the goal that most here have is to "do photography." Owning lenses is not equal to doing photography. (Owning a scalpel doesn't make you a real doctor. Owning a Steinway doesn't make you a real pianist, owning a BMW doesn't make you a better driver, ...)
I'm not saying that having appropriate equipment is without value, but I am saying that allowing the acquisition of lenses and bodies to form the primary orientation to photography is an entirely different thing from being a photographer....Show more →
Well, not going to buy this because of my current financial state but luckily I found a friend who lives nearby which have it (and many other extremely expensive lenses) who simply offered: "Whenever you want, just drop by and borrow it".
I guess it's happy ending after all.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Dec 21, 2009 at 12:58 AM
p.5 #12Trying to avoid the 17/4
Yakim Peled wrote:
Well, not going to buy this because of my current financial state but luckily I found a friend who lives nearby which have it (and many other extremely expensive lenses) who simply offered: "Whenever you want, just drop by and borrow it".
I know the feeling. For the better part of the decade I have been doing this with the 24TSE. In turn, my buddy was borrowing my 400 DO for numerous exotic trips. In the end however he ended up buying his own 400 DO (because we once scheduled a trip to different places at the same time) and I got my own TSE, because the convenience and primarily liability were worth it. But I completely understand your position - been there...
Well, not going to buy this because of my current financial state but luckily I found a friend who lives nearby which have it (and many other extremely expensive lenses) who simply offered: "Whenever you want, just drop by and borrow it".
I know the feeling. For the better part of the decade I have been doing this with the 24TSE. In turn, my buddy was borrowing my 400 DO for numerous exotic trips. In the end however he ended up buying his own 400 DO (because we once scheduled a trip to different places at the same time) and I got my own TSE, because the convenience and primarily liability were worth it. But I completely understand your position - been there...
Dec 21, 2009 at 01:47 AM
p.5 #13Trying to avoid the 17/4
gdanmitchell wrote:
I'm not saying that having appropriate equipment is without value, but I am saying that allowing the acquisition of lenses and bodies to form the primary orientation to photography is an entirely different thing from being a photographer. In fact it can - and perhaps a bit too often does - become an obsession and a distraction from actual photography.
I understand what you mean, and in many ways, and for many people, I am guilty as charged. My arguably best work was with an inferior camera and at a time when I had four lenses in my bag. Or was it five? Doesn't matter. Over the years I have accumulated more, and only rarely have I gotten rid of a lens and not actually replaced it with something equal or "better" (135L being such an example - that lens never did anything for me).
Recently, through changes in my life circumstances, I have been unable to do the photography I have enjoyed and pretty much lived for the past, eh, 30 years. Over the same recent period of time I have accumulated a lot of new stuff. Because I can't do what I would like to do, I in a way create challenges for myself: get something that I know I can use at some point in the future, and learn to use it quite proficiently, so that when the time comes I can use it. Thing is, the "mainstream" lenses are quite "easy" to use well. The more to the fringe you go the harder it gets: 65 MPE for instance (way out of my league); 800mm (have no clue what I'd do with it, but I keep hearing long lens and bird technique is an art. I just don't care for birds, and I do care about my wife). So my current "challenge" is the 200/2. It's actually tougher to use than one would think (or I am a moron, which is also possible ). Is it a frivolous purchase? Absolutely. Am I learning something? You bet. It keeps me occupied and sharpens me up, in some way. And I have no doubt that within a year or so I'll put it to some good use.
It's not an excuse; just a justification. Beats sitting on the sofa and watching football or Nascar, at least for me.
I'm not saying that having appropriate equipment is without value, but I am saying that allowing the acquisition of lenses and bodies to form the primary orientation to photography is an entirely different thing from being a photographer. In fact it can - and perhaps a bit too often does - become an obsession and a distraction from actual photography.
I understand what you mean, and in many ways, and for many people, I am guilty as charged. My arguably best work was with an inferior camera and at a time when I had four lenses in my bag. Or was it five? Doesn't matter. Over the years I have accumulated more, and only rarely have I gotten rid of a lens and not actually replaced it with something equal or "better" (135L being such an example - that lens never did anything for me).
Recently, through changes in my life circumstances, I have been unable to do the photography I have enjoyed and pretty much lived for the past, eh, 30 years. Over the same recent period of time I have accumulated a lot of new stuff. Because I can't do what I would like to do, I in a way create challenges for myself: get something that I know I can use at some point in the future, and learn to use it quite proficiently, so that when the time comes I can use it. Thing is, the "mainstream" lenses are quite "easy" to use well. The more to the fringe you go the harder it gets: 65 MPE for instance (way out of my league); 800mm (have no clue what I'd do with it, but I keep hearing long lens and bird technique is an art. I just don't care for birds, and I do care about my wife
). So my current "challenge" is the 200/2. It's actually tougher to use than one would think (or I am a moron, which is also possible ). Is it a frivolous purchase? Absolutely. Am I learning something? You bet. It keeps me occupied and sharpens me up, in some way. And I have no doubt that within a year or so I'll put it to some good use.It's not an excuse; just a justification. Beats sitting on the sofa and watching football or Nascar, at least for me.
Dec 21, 2009 at 01:59 AM
p.5 #14Trying to avoid the 17/4
While I appreciate the sentiment in Dan's post, as someone who pretty much went from 1980's 35mm SLR + 50/1.8 standard lens, to a 5D2 + four L lenses, I have to say that in my experience, much of the reason for this "collection" behavior is due to knowing what kind of pictures I want to take and knowing that anything less would not be satisfactory. To date, I have not made a purchase wherein I felt like what I bought was more than what I needed, either from a technical or functional perspective. In fact, there are times when I feel like I cheaped out. My purchase of the EF 300/4L IS is one such instance. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy using this lens immensely and I can get very nice shots with it. But long before I bought it, I knew what I really wanted was the 300/2.8. The extra stop, the superior sharpness, the better performance and versatility with the EF Extenders... all of these are things I could fully exploit in my photography.
Another experience I had recently was when I had the opportunity to try out the EF 50/1.4, a lens I do not particularly covet. And when I did, my impressions were confirmed. The soft, dreamlike performance from f/1.4 - f/2.8 obviates the need for me to own such a lens for the wide aperture.
I guess the bottom line is that for many "collectors" out there, a big motivation for the collecting is knowing precisely what they need for taking the shots they want, and how they intend to use it. That's not to say there aren't people who collect just for the sake of being able to say they own a particular exotic lens, but Yakim certainly does not come across as such. I am quite sure that he would have absolutely no problem finding ways of maximizing his usage of the TS-E 17/4L!
Another experience I had recently was when I had the opportunity to try out the EF 50/1.4, a lens I do not particularly covet. And when I did, my impressions were confirmed. The soft, dreamlike performance from f/1.4 - f/2.8 obviates the need for me to own such a lens for the wide aperture.
I guess the bottom line is that for many "collectors" out there, a big motivation for the collecting is knowing precisely what they need for taking the shots they want, and how they intend to use it. That's not to say there aren't people who collect just for the sake of being able to say they own a particular exotic lens, but Yakim certainly does not come across as such. I am quite sure that he would have absolutely no problem finding ways of maximizing his usage of the TS-E 17/4L!
Dec 21, 2009 at 02:35 AM
p.5 #15Trying to avoid the 17/4
Absolutely not. I am not a collector. If I was I'd never sell so much lenses in the past 19 years I take pictures. It's just a matter of high vs. low usage percentage. If it reaches 0% I sell it. I have no sentiments to gear. If I'd ever get the 17TS it'll be a low usage lens, just like my other TS lenses, not a 0% usage. It's just that it's so expensive.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Dec 21, 2009 at 03:07 AM
p.5 #16Trying to avoid the 17/4
I like to think that the goal that most here have is to "do photography." Owning lenses is not equal to doing photography. (Owning a scalpel doesn't make you a real doctor. Owning a Steinway doesn't make you a real pianist, owning a BMW doesn't make you a better driver, ...)
Someone once told me something along these lines: "When I was young, I had time to travel, but did not have money. Now I have the money, but don't have the time". I think the same applies to any activity that does not make our living.
Some talented people on this forum have stressful jobs and families. Their time for "doing photography" is very limited. You can collect lenses from 9PM to 11PM, but you can't take any photographs. So you at least research gear and get the best to capitalize on the upcoming weekend or vacation.
Someone once told me something along these lines: "When I was young, I had time to travel, but did not have money. Now I have the money, but don't have the time". I think the same applies to any activity that does not make our living.
Some talented people on this forum have stressful jobs and families. Their time for "doing photography" is very limited. You can collect lenses from 9PM to 11PM, but you can't take any photographs. So you at least research gear and get the best to capitalize on the upcoming weekend or vacation.
Dec 21, 2009 at 12:51 PM
p.5 #17Trying to avoid the 17/4
sandra pix wrote:
I went through a lot of the same stuff you are describing regarding lens lust, ....Then it mutated into also becoming a collector -..... So in the last year or so I have finally gained the resolve to trim things down and to get down to what I need and use, and am in the process of doing so now.
Me too . consolidate for use not collection. The challenge is 3 camera systems (Canon, Nikon and Panasonic) and 3 styles of photography (Colour, IR, and ultraviolet). To consolidate I built a spreadsheet for sharpness, color, Bokeh, IR use, UV use, lowlight, frequency I used it, ability to use on multiple systems, is there another lens I have that can replace its use. Sorted the results and those lens that failed to my liking in 3 or more categories became possible lens to eliminate.
Not to say I won't buy anything again, .... well thought out, and for good reason.
I still buy but also with much more forethought.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I like to think that the goal that most here have is to "do photography." Owning lenses is not equal to doing photography.
I'm not saying that having appropriate equipment is without value, but I am saying that allowing the acquisition of lenses and bodies to form the primary orientation to photography is an entirely different thing from being a photographer. In fact it can - and perhaps a bit too often does - become an obsession and a distraction from actual photography.
High quality lenses that provide functional value to the photographer for his/her photography certainly have their place. I...Show more →
Totally agree Dan, and a fine line can happen between trying a lens to see if it fits the needs and just getting it for the purpose of collecting. I enjoy Ultraviolet photography and the thing I face is does the lens provide functional value I hope for. This caused my collection to grow, Take UV there are very few lens that are good for this. In analyzing and researching I found the options were Coastal Optics 60mmm, Nikon 105UV, Nikon E Series 28,35,50,75-150.70-210. So I had to have them all. Eventually I realized this was too many so my UV kit went from 7 to 3 lens - Coastal Optics 60, Nikon 105UV, and Nikon E Series 28. The other 4 became part of a collection, finally I saw the light and parted company with them.
stanj wrote:
(135L being such an example - that lens never did anything for me).
The 135L is a weird one for me. On the 70-200 zoom, I would use that focal length often. The 135L is supposed to be great for infrared photography. So I bought the lens as it seemed appropriate. It is rarely used. So appropriate yes - of value - not at this time.
Yakim Peled wrote:
It's just a matter of high vs. low usage percentage. If it reaches 0% I sell it. I have no sentiments to gear.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Well put, why keep something that doesn't get used.
I became a collector, and then saw the LACK OF LIGHT travelling through various lenses.
So I set course to leave the Darkside of lens collecting and and headed towards the Light of lens use.
One day I'll only have lenses that are used to take pictures not a used lens collection.
I went through a lot of the same stuff you are describing regarding lens lust, ....Then it mutated into also becoming a collector -..... So in the last year or so I have finally gained the resolve to trim things down and to get down to what I need and use, and am in the process of doing so now.
Me too .
consolidate for use not collection. The challenge is 3 camera systems (Canon, Nikon and Panasonic) and 3 styles of photography (Colour, IR, and ultraviolet). To consolidate I built a spreadsheet for sharpness, color, Bokeh, IR use, UV use, lowlight, frequency I used it, ability to use on multiple systems, is there another lens I have that can replace its use. Sorted the results and those lens that failed to my liking in 3 or more categories became possible lens to eliminate. Not to say I won't buy anything again, .... well thought out, and for good reason.
I still buy but also with much more forethought.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I like to think that the goal that most here have is to "do photography." Owning lenses is not equal to doing photography.
I'm not saying that having appropriate equipment is without value, but I am saying that allowing the acquisition of lenses and bodies to form the primary orientation to photography is an entirely different thing from being a photographer. In fact it can - and perhaps a bit too often does - become an obsession and a distraction from actual photography.
High quality lenses that provide functional value to the photographer for his/her photography certainly have their place. I...Show more →
Totally agree Dan, and a fine line can happen between trying a lens to see if it fits the needs and just getting it for the purpose of collecting. I enjoy Ultraviolet photography and the thing I face is does the lens provide functional value I hope for. This caused my collection to grow, Take UV there are very few lens that are good for this. In analyzing and researching I found the options were Coastal Optics 60mmm, Nikon 105UV, Nikon E Series 28,35,50,75-150.70-210. So I had to have them all. Eventually I realized this was too many so my UV kit went from 7 to 3 lens - Coastal Optics 60, Nikon 105UV, and Nikon E Series 28. The other 4 became part of a collection, finally I saw the light and parted company with them.
stanj wrote:
(135L being such an example - that lens never did anything for me).
The 135L is a weird one for me. On the 70-200 zoom, I would use that focal length often. The 135L is supposed to be great for infrared photography. So I bought the lens as it seemed appropriate. It is rarely used. So appropriate yes - of value - not at this time.
Yakim Peled wrote:
It's just a matter of high vs. low usage percentage. If it reaches 0% I sell it. I have no sentiments to gear.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Well put, why keep something that doesn't get used.
I became a collector, and then saw the LACK OF LIGHT travelling through various lenses.
So I set course to leave the Darkside of lens collecting and and headed towards the Light of lens use.
One day I'll only have lenses that are used to take pictures not a used lens collection.
Dec 21, 2009 at 02:52 PM
p.5 #18Trying to avoid the 17/4
My wife and I both lost our jobs within a span of a few weeks last fall. I had to liquidate a lot of gear to pay off some bills and to have some money in the bank for mortgage payments, and I'm still trying to whittle down and adjust the gear list to just the bare essentials... I would likely sell all of it, but my photography is my only source of income now, and thankfully that is starting to pick up again as the economy is slowly recovering.
It's interesting how your perspective on buying gear changes when you go from two incomes to none... I seldom used to think twice about buying a new piece of gear just to "try it out" (which allowed me to see just how unreliable internet reviews can be...) but now that's a luxury that I can no longer afford.
It's interesting how your perspective on buying gear changes when you go from two incomes to none... I seldom used to think twice about buying a new piece of gear just to "try it out" (which allowed me to see just how unreliable internet reviews can be...) but now that's a luxury that I can no longer afford.
Dec 30, 2009 at 11:04 AM
p.5 #19Trying to avoid the 17/4
It's so sad to hear that.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Dec 31, 2009 at 06:17 AM
p.5 #20Trying to avoid the 17/4
Update: My wife got a new job. Now I wonder if these are indeed good news as I feel the urge creeps back at me.....
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Apr 16, 2010 at 04:21 PM