[normhead]

Agreed. If only.......



This is still an issue for me. I don't like coke cans or Pringles cans attached to my camera as I have a tendency to
continually forget that protruding bulk and knock the lens into branches and door frames when I quickly pivot with
camera at the ready. I am eagerly awaiting a breakthrough in fresnel technology to deliver the first high quality
pancake zoom. Until then I much prefer the performance and size that primes deliver.

I have no idea what you're shooting... but I doubt a DA 55-300 PLM collapsed is going to be banging off a lot of this. Nor will a DA 20-40 ltd. What do you restrict yourself to? The DA 40 XS?

[RGlasel]

I'm wondering why they group superzooms with tele zooms

Only the person compiling this report knows for sure, I couldn't find the criteria used for this report anywhere on the CIPA website. One possible reason is that like MF and larger lenses, the quantity sold doesn't meet CIPA's criteria for giving data for the category, in other words true telephoto zooms (say ones that start at 150mm) are sold in such small quantities that it is possible to determine results for specific manufacturers, which defeats the purpose of reporting sales to CIPA. Besides, how do you categorize a 50-500 or 55-300 compared to a 70-300 or a 150-450? I suspect that any zoom with its maximum focal length over a certain length (say 105mm) is designated as a super/telephoto zoom.

[boriscleto]

Or 35mm for APS-C normal?

50mm for both. Everyone I know who uses Canikon has a 50/1.8.

[normhead]

50mm for both. Everyone I know who uses Canikon has a 50/1.8.

35mm has just never appealed to me. My 35 mm primes are my least used lenses. Amazing how many images that are too wide for 50, are still too wide for 35mm.

[TwoUptons]

50mm for both. Everyone I know who uses Canikon has a 50/1.8.

Those are the lenses that to me indicate the beginning of becoming an “enthusiast”.

18-55 and 50-200 or so are ‘kit’, even if you bought them separately... once you get that 50mm, you’re probably doomed...

-Eric

[boriscleto]

Those are the lenses that to me indicate the beginning of becoming an “enthusiast”.

18-55 and 50-200 or so are ‘kit’, even if you bought them separately... once you get that 50mm, you’re probably doomed...

-Eric

What does it say if you own 57 primes between 40 and 58mm? Only one AF...

Edit: actually it's probably more, I've neglected the spreadsheet for a while.

[normhead]

What does it say if you own 57 primes between 40 and 58mm? Only one AF...

I'd probably refine that question, to how many lenses you have you never use? That will clarify the question somewhat.

[timb64]

What does it say if you own 57 primes between 40 and 58mm?

That you're perhaps more interested in collecting photographic equipment than using it?

[boriscleto]

I'd probably refine that question, to how many lenses you have you never use? That will clarify the question somewhat.

I would say I'm a "collector" but I know I'm a hoarder...

[MJKoski]

The most rare lenses are the ones used to make the most interesting photos.

[monochrome]

Lenses bought NIB:

Prime: 8
Zoom: 6
Acc: 1

Total Collection:
Prime:Zoom Ratio
10:1

[Kerrowdown]

I'm a prime extremist.

Where does that leave me then...

[tvdtvdtvd]

I have no idea what you're shooting... but I doubt a DA 55-300 PLM collapsed is going to be banging off a lot of this. Nor will a DA 20-40 ltd. What do you restrict yourself to? The DA 40 XS?

One man's petite lens is another man's bazooka. Let's compare:

DA55-300 = 442g & 89mm long
That's 60% heavier and nearly twice as long as the FA77, a favorite and frequently used lens of mine.
I rarely shoot FL longer when I'm not shooting macro(*), so I wouldn't be interested in the DA55-300 anyway.

Let's compare the DA16-85, which is a range I'd be interested in.
488g and 94mm long. That's about soda can size, (a little shorter, a little wider).
That's 80% heavier and twice as long as the FA77.
About the same for the K28/3.5, another lens I use frequently, in that FL range.

DFA24-70? DFA15-30? Non-starters for me when I can use a prime a quarter their size.

DA20-40 is comparable to the largest primes I typically use which is why I find it a tempting choice.
Budget constraints and no real immediate need has delayed the purchase to date but it is near the
top of my (mostly) unnecessary wants.


* - I'm currently doing someone in studio macro work. At the moment I'm using the SMCA 100/4 Macro,
which feels like a BIG lens in comparison to the primes I usually walk around with. The biggest lens I use
with any frequency is the Vivitar 90/2.5 Macro, which is quite a tank with its obscenely thick walled barrels.

[timb64]

One man's petite lens is another man's bazooka. Let's compare:

DA55-300 = 442g & 89mm long
That's 60% heavier and nearly twice as long as the FA77, a favorite and frequently used lens of mine.
I rarely shoot FL longer when I'm not shooting macro, so I wouldn't be interested in the DA55-300 anyway.

Let's compare the DA16-85, which is a range I'd be interested in.
488g and 94mm long. That's about soda can size, (a little shorter, a little wider).
That's 80% heavier and twice as long as the FA77.
About the same for the K28/3.5, another lens I use frequently, in that FL range.

DFA24-70? DFA15-30? Non-starters for me when I can use a prime a quarter their size.

DA20-40 is comparable to the largest primes I typically use which is why I find it a tempting choice.
Budget constraints and no real immediate need has delayed the purchase to date but it is near the
top of my (mostly) unnecessary wants.

Like many things in life it's a compromise isn't it?

The convenience of a wide range of focal lengths,no need to change lenses (an important factor in many of the places I travel to) of a zoom against the better IQ and lighter/smaller package of a prime.For me zooms are the better compromise.

[boriscleto]

Where does that leave me then...

On a watch list.