I think I have bad G.A.S!! help!!

Cagey75

Cagey75

Messages
17,227
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Probably in every sense of the word too :D

But: Gear acquisition syndrome is hitting me once again, as it seems to every year.

Over the past few months I have chopped and changed lenses more than I did in the 2 years previous. I've sold on 3 lenses since just before Christmas alone. Thing is, I just want to get the right mix for me, now that I have gone FX.

I started with the 24-70, 50mm 1.8, 105 micro and the 70-200 VRII - all that remains right now is the 24-70.

I have a 35mm 1.4, an 85mm 1.8G, and a 150mm macro on the way.

I am one of those with a little OCD when it comes to lenses, I hate crossing over focal lengths. The 35 disrupts this, as it crosses the 24-70. Now I'm itching, and thinking on selling that too! I've been eyeing up the likes of Zeiss wide primes [18, 21, 25] , the Nikon 14-24, and the very cheap Samyang 14mm [that and a zeiss 25mm??!] - should I just calm TF down? and see how I go with the incoming primes before selling off the one zoom I got?

Or ... other suggestions? Is having a bag chock full of primes a good idea?
 
probably you need a much longer list of things to photograph!

There is nothing wrong with buying and selling occasionally, to cover a gap, to sell redundant gear, to upgrade to a significantly better ones, etc. As you rightly think that you have gone past your own limits, that must be it then.

I think you will be mad selling staple zooms, even if you use them rarely. You can easily mess up a dynamic shoot with prime, and particularly manual primes, even if they are made by Zeiss. A second body is probably something that you do need to consider for serious paid work.
 
I like to photograph everything really. Knowing I have a lens in bag for any situation seems good to me. But that could be this GAS talking!

If I was shooting weddings I would look to a 2nd body definitely, but for the time being, I just want all angles covered I guess. You're right though maybe, selling a lens like the 24-70 is crazy. It wouldn't be an easy decision. It's the kind of lens I could just stick on, and shoot ... everything with really. If I ad to choose to have only one lens total, it would be that. I shot with a D90 and tamron 17-50 for a long time with nothing else.

I found it easy sell the 70-200 though, the weight of it being in the bag, not being used, was a bit much - as I have a duffed lower back, neck isn't the best either [had an op a few years back]

I got back what I paid for it which was nice. I rarely ever lose on selling on a lens. I do keep them well, always cleaning - same with any body I might have at the time.

I just wonder will the arrival of the 35 1.4 relegate the 24-70 to the shelf more often?

I can't help looking at the 300mm f/4 also :D
 
Is the 150mm the Siggy f2.8 macro? If it is, I have one and I think you'll like it :D

I don't have a "standard" zoom. On FF they're big, fat and heavy and frighten people. Yuk. I like primes and on the zoom side I like wide angle zooms so my zooms are a 12-24mm and a 20-35mm and for those once a year moments I also have a 70-300mm.

I see that you don't have a 50mm f1.4? If I only had one lens on FF it'd be a 50mm f1.4. How can you live without one? :gag: :D Using manual lenses on DSLR's doesn't really interest me these days but on MFT I really like them.
 
Yup, the more recent version with OS, I've been reading great things about it. I made a thread here about longer macro lenses, was undecided between a few - finally clamped down on a decision there.

I had the 50mm 1.8G, but wasn't using it much as I had the 24-70, and found it just as sharp at 50mm - doesn't have that 1.8 but I would just bump the ISO out of laziness maybe. I've owned all kinds of 50mm lenses in the past, my fav was actually the old minolta 1.7 for my old Sony A200.

Now I have a 35mm 1.4 incoming, I know I'll use that as I've been reading up on it and looking forward to trying some 1.4 on FX. I actually never had a 1.4 lens, used them/borrowed, but never owned. They were just too expensive for me. I was poor and unable to buy anything outside of used DX gear up until late last year btw. In case anyone mistakenly thinks I'm some rich dude ... very far from. I have been scraping for years trying to collect a nice package of gear. Only recently have I been able to, and maybe it's gone to my head?
 
I'm the samev as yourself Cagey. Constantly changing and although I know I try to buy right, so I don't lose much when selling back, occasionally I do, but there's an excitement in getting a new lens to try out.

I agree with Alan...you defo need a 50mm. I couldn't be without one now, BUT I also hanker after the 35 your getting and I feel a bit scared the 50 and 35 are too close in FL for me to have both, but also I may feel the 35 is just a touch too wide??

Ah it's a hard life! :D
 
You could get another body a d600 maybe then have a prime on each!:)
 
I think it's either one, 50 or 35, one would gather dust for me. I'm hoping it being that bit wider I'll use it more so for general use. The 85 for head shots, the 150 for maro and portrait also - maybe it's all I need for now? I just get these itches! I need to learn to take time outs and bar myself from gear sites :) I thought about it again, after posting this up, and I don't even think I would use a wide angle much at all. I would use a tele lens more often, so if I do splurge again it'll be on a 300 ... or a 2nd body as mentioned, hang on till i just go check prices ... :D
 
I've been watching the post every day like an excited child - no sign of it yet :/

Just seen Nikon have announced a new wide angle/kit lens:

http://www.nikon.com/news/2013/0129_lens_05.htm

How will that fit in with the existing 16-35? Could be a nail in it's coffin if this new lens is much cheaper. They have also announced an 800mm f/5.6 ... think I'll leave that one for now :D
 
Gigs for local bands, family portraits - all paid

The rest, just hobby really, I'm out of work through injury, the photography has been as much a therapy and hobby as anything else. But I'm trying to build up my own little business for the future, just not in a mad rush :)
 
I'm doing my first band shoot tomorrow. I'm going to take a more documentary style approach and hang about with the for the day. I'm not really a fan for the kerrang type photoshoot with lighting etc.. I would really like to shoot album artwork and inlays for a living. I don't suppose there's much use for it anymore with the likes of itunes.
 
Last edited:
The last album & Ep artwork jobs i did were probably the last sadly. As you say, itunes is killing off packaging. They're fun to do. As ever with struggling musicians, they never pay very well, but I love music, I love the gig scene and it's pretty good in this little town right now. We fund raised for 2 years for our daughter, and tonnes of bands played gigs for us, that's how I got in there. Still doing their gigs and promo shoots here and there.
 
35mm and 85mm is an ace prime combo, covers pretty much most situations.

24-70 f2.8 + 35mm f1.4 isn't really crossed functions. there are 2 stops of light difference. you would have needed ISO 12800 for 24-70 could be achieved with ISO 3200 on the f1.4.

that 4 lens setup looks perfect. no need to change.
 
It's more that the 24-70 may get a little neglected when the 35 arrives, but that still has the width and zoom going for it :) That's the pick up and go lens, when I don't want to bother with the bag. The 35mm will be used a lot indoors, y'know, boring pictures of my kids and the cat :D
 
wuyanxu said:
35mm and 85mm is an ace prime combo, covers pretty much most situations.

24-70 f2.8 + 35mm f1.4 isn't really crossed functions. there are 2 stops of light difference. you would have needed ISO 12800 for 24-70 could be achieved with ISO 3200 on the f1.4.

that 4 lens setup looks perfect. no need to change.
Click to expand...

That would be my thinking, personally I think alot of the "no overlap" mindset tends to come from gear hounds on the net rather than people who actually make use of the benefits different lenses give.

Looking at the 18-35mm MTF's my guess would be it'll compair to the 16-35mm VR in much the same way the 24-85mm VR compairs to the 24-120mm VR. That is similar optical performance over the same range but reduced build/specs/range.

In the 16-35mm favour though I would say that its one of the few lenses were we actually seem to get a good deal here in the UK, digitalrev for example is £90 more expensive than my local LCE was.
 
Moreorless said:
personally I think alot of the "no overlap" mindset tends to come from gear hounds on the net rather than people who actually make use of the benefits different lenses give.
Click to expand...

I'd say "gear hounds" don't mind over lap whatsoever, which is why they have every lens going. They wont care about any over lap.

For me, it's just simply the fact that I may not use one if I have another in the same region ... that would make me an anti-gear hound/hog then.

I don't like waste. I'll only buy what I know I will use, much as possible. So, though I may have a little GAS right now, once I get the right mix, I'll use each and every lens as much as I possibly can, and I tend to shoot almost daily.

I guarantee, I use my lenses a lot more than just staring at them on a shelf ;)

The new 18-35 lens is going to be about half the weight of the 16-35, but lacking VR [though it will have SWM + weather sealing] . It'll be interesting to see the pricing, as the 16-35 price is falling every time I check it. I don't think you need VR at wide angle, but if it's anywhere near the price of the 16-35, I can't see many choosing this instead. being lighter isn't enough, without being much cheaper!
 
Last edited:
My 85mm has arrived. What a lovely little thing it is. It's a lot lighter than I remember my old 85D, of course. But I love these plastic G versions, they're not only very affordable, but they're nice and light and casual. I think they're better looking than their older Steel D cousins too. I know the 35 is going to be much bigger and much heavier than this, which will seem odd to begin with. The smaller, lighter, more fun lens is the longer focal length one :)
 
Cagey75 said:
I'd say "gear hounds" don't mind over lap whatsoever, which is why they have every lens going. They wont care about any over lap.

For me, it's just simply the fact that I may not use one if I have another in the same region ... that would make me an anti-gear hound/hog then.

I don't like waste. I'll only buy what I know I will use, much as possible. So, though I may have a little GAS right now, once I get the right mix, I'll use each and every lens as much as I possibly can, and I tend to shoot almost daily.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear I wasnt calling you out as one but there isnt IMHO always a temptation to get draw into the "best IQ with no waste" mindset when it might not always be the best choice, I know I'v felt it in the past.

I just think the best guide will always be to look at your own shooting habits, if both lenses get a good amount of use then just accept the overlap IMHO.

The new 18-35 lens is going to be about half the weight of the 16-35, but lacking VR [though it will have SWM + weather sealing] . It'll be interesting to see the pricing, as the 16-35 price is falling every time I check it. I don't think you need VR at wide angle, but if it's anywhere near the price of the 16-35, I can't see many choosing this instead. being lighter isn't enough, without being much cheaper!
Click to expand...

I can definately see it selling alot more, espeically given the D600 and that UWA zooms are often not peoples most used lenses. The cheapness of the 17-40mm L on the Canon side probabley helped force an update aswell I expect.

I'm guessing the sealing is like Nikons other recent "budget" G lenses, gasket on the barrel but the lens itself not sealed.

Personally I find I actually use VR more on an UWA than a mid range zoom simpley because I tend to shoot mostly landscapes and architecture stopped down with it. On a D700 I'm guessing that wouldnt be an issue but I find it doesnt take THAT slow a shutter speed for it to be an issue on the D800 for me.
 
Last edited:
Just in case, I was making it clear I'm not one of those types ;) I don't tend to follow any one else's habits, got enough bad ones of my own :)

The new 18-35 might interest the likes of me see, I don't shoot wide much at all. I find 24mm sufficient for most purposes, but it would be nice to have the option I guess. I was looking at the Samyang 14mm, MF doesn't scare me that much, I've had a few manual focus zooms in the past. It'll depend on the price of this new Nikon, I've seen in or around £700 quoted on a couple of sites already- they can keep it at that!
 
Cagey75 said:
Just in case, I was making it clear I'm not one of those types ;) I don't tend to follow any one else's habits, got enough bad ones of my own :)

The new 18-35 might interest the likes of me see, I don't shoot wide much at all. I find 24mm sufficient for most purposes, but it would be nice to have the option I guess. I was looking at the Samyang 14mm, MF doesn't scare me that much, I've had a few manual focus zooms in the past. It'll depend on the price of this new Nikon, I've seen in or around £700 quoted on a couple of sites already- they can keep it at that!
Click to expand...

That does seem a bit high but I wasnt expecting UK stock to be cheap, seems like we get charged much more of a prenium for Nikon comsumer lenses.
 
Well done microglobe ... mailed me only this evening to say they don't actually have the 150mm OS in stock - would I like to wait a few weeks or take a refund ... grrrr. It's a lot more on amazon uk. Pee'd off over that now. Why do they state on their site that they have them in??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top