[bdery]

You could say getting a Vivitar series 1 70-210 before owning a DSLR (or SLR) was LBA...

My first really unnecessary lens (according to my wife) is my FA50 macro... I already had a 28 mm plus reversing ring, so what good was a macro lens right? Now she sees photos from it she's happy.

Another unnecessary purchase was the M 150 f3,5, but at 30$ how could I refuse?

My LBA has been funded by buying and selling lenses, so far I'm in the positive so everything's fine. When I have a positive account, however, I tend to spend again... 18-55 WR owners beware!

[Lowell Goudge]

I won't be making money off photography so its not a "really need" or is it a need because my kit isnt set yet... i'm confused

the reason I put "need" vs "want" is that there have been a lot of threads on how to establish a lens kit.

In these threads and as I stated in my first response you need to plan out your lenses, and work out a way to get there.

For me, when you consider I travel a lot and also do nature, I decided I needed 3-4 zooms that cover the range 10mm to 400mm. I do this with a Sigma 10-20, a tamron 28-75 F2.8 and a sigma 70-200F2.8 plus 1.4x and 2x TC's. If I need something to fill the gap of 20-28mm I take the SMC-FAJ 18-35 that came on my *istD. This gives me a base travel kit of 4 lenses and 2 TCs and this covers the range pretty well.

BUT this kit is limited to F2.8 or slower.

To compensate for that I have begun collecting primes, to supliment the primes that I had with film. All of my primes are faster than the zooms at any given focal length, and aside from portraits, I use them for night photography, or to cut down the weight of my 4 lens AF zoom kit. For example, I have travelled often with just the 10-20, th4e 28-75 and a 135 F2.5 when I knew that extreme tele was not needed, and the 135 is a lot lighter than the 70-200F2.8.

I have decided to stay with MF primes, only because when I am using them I don't really feel the need to have AF or even auto exposure. Manual exposure is pretty easy when you get used to it.

so to "control" my LBA, I set some basic rules, that except for the 85mmF1.9 I have followed pretty well. Nevery buy anything slower than I already have at any focal lenght.

when you have from 28mm to 200mm already covered at F2.8, that gets pretty tough.

[robbiec]

My first real LBA? probably the SMC Takumar 85 f1.8, I had a f1.9 version already so why did I need a f1.8? I have a 77LTD now as well so is that LBA purchase considering I had 2 85s? Don't think so... its a different focal length
Saying that... I really really want and need an A* 85 f1.4 so by definition that is an LBA piece

[julia]

my first LBA is DA40, about 3 weeks ago.
2nd LBA is A50 f1.7 which I didn't need it, too close to DA40 and also I was planning to buy FA77.

[StephenMerola]

I think my most serious LBA purchases were the Pentax 645 FA 120mm f4macro and the 645 FA 80-160mm f4.5. I already have a macro (Sigma 180) and I have absolutely no need for the 80-160mm, but in a fit of LBA bought one for $179.00.

The SMC 85mm f1.8 was also an LBA purchase since I already had the Rokinon, but I could not resist the $229.00 price tag.

I also just bought a Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 with the K adapter. I did not need this lens, but made a ebay bid that I was sure would be out-bid. Big mistake. I should get the lens this week. I am not sure whether to be happy or sad.

I guess the 80-160mm was the worst overall......unless I buy a 645n.

The lenses I bought that do not qualify as LBA are the following:
Sigma 24-60mm f2.8, 180mm f3.5 macro, 28mm f1.8, and 17-35mm f2.8-4, FA 50mm f1.4. Rokinon 85mm f1.4. I use these lenses often and they all fulfill a need in my kit.

[Blue]

The "need" part makes it tricky. Maybe the FA 50mm f1.4 or the Tamron 180mm f2.5 SP.

[VAV]

A Tokina manual focus 80-200 f2.8 on ebay and an FA 50 were my first LBA lenses. Never used them that much afterwards.

[Lowell Goudge]

I also just bought a Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 with the K adapter. I did not need this lens, but made a ebay bid that I was sure would be out-bid. Big mistake. I should get the lens this week. I am not sure whether to be happy or sad.

if you don't like it tell me why and perhaps I might be interested

[monochrome]

The "need" part makes it tricky. Maybe the FA 50mm f1.4 (NOT - everybody needs one) or the Tamron 180mm f2.5 SP (IS - even if it is a great lens).

Not that I wouldn't buy the Tammy if it hit me over the head.

[Marc Sabatella]

Lots of ways to interpret the question, so I'll try to hit them all.

My first DSLR camera (*istDS) came with the DA18-55 and a Tamron-made 70-300. Since I had the option of buying the camera with just the 18-55 for $100 less, you could say the 70-300 was the first lens I bought.

The first lens I actually bought separately was an M50/1.7, used for $25 or so. To the extent one "needs" any lens, sure, I needed this, to be able to get decent shots in low light.

After being *given* my next two lenses (offbrand 135/2.8 and 28/2.8), the next lens I bought was one I didn't "need" by any stretch: the DA50-200. But it had just come out pretty recently, and since I never liked the 70-300 (too big, too slow to focus, no quick shift), I got it anyhow, and have barely used the 70-300 since, except to remind myself why I prefer the 50-200.

The lens that strikes me as the most LBA-worthy purchase, though, was the DA70. I really didn't need that lens at all, having reasonable fast options at 50mm and 100mm, and the 50-200 to fill the gap when I don't need the speed. But I wanted for a specific purpose - shooting a jazz festival last spring - and that happened to be at a time when I had the money. While I do love the results I get from the lens, I just don't use the focal length all that often. So it's probably got the highest cost-per-shot-taken of any lens I own.

[FotoPete]

First lba was another Pentax ME + M50. Cuz I didn't know how to load my ME properly and thought it was busted. Boy the damaging trend it started!

[bilybianca]

I guess a severe proof of the disease was when I some time ago bought my A 50mm 1.4. Why? Well, I already had an F 50mm 1.4. And an FA 50 mm 1.4...

[PentHassyKon]

.................

When I add up everything I have bought on impulse then sold in guilt I could have a K-7 and the three Limiteds.

Wouldn't have had as much fun, though.

I think this for me sums up what LBA is all about. I just summed up all my photography related purchases and realized I coulda .....


Anyways, back to the question
My 1st LBA was a 40mm purchased here. I had just purchased my k200d with kit lens and had an LX that came with an M/1.4, M/2.0 so I didn't really need the 40mm. This I think definitely qualifies for an LBA purchase don't you guys think? I've since sold off the M/1.4 and will probably sell the M/2.0 and more than likely keep the 40mm as a reminder of my 1st LBA purchase.

Speaking of 40mm's and LBA - I just purchased a Leica CL. Now I gotta, must, need to get a 40mm Summicron for it - right? Anyone out there in Pentax land want to sell me one? (or give? )

[Class A]

...some time ago bought my A 50mm 1.4. Why? Well, I already had an F 50mm 1.4. And an FA 50 mm 1.4...

Now we're talking addiction.
That's bad, really bad.

Nevery buy anything slower than I already have at any focal lenght.

That's my main rule as well, although one may want to make an exception for lenses that have some unique character, like great bokeh, funky bokeh, or feature such as close focusing ability.

Is lusting after a Voigtländer Nokton 58/1.4 a sign of LBA if one got a FA 50/1.4 already? Some may say yes because the former is only MF and not faster, some may say no because the difference in FOV is significant and the bokeh is rather different.

Hence I believe there cannot be a clearcut definition of when a lens buy is evidence of LBA. "Real photographers" may frown at people who spend more time researching and buying lenses rather than shooting with what they've got, but then photography is a hobby that makes sense both artist-ically and gearist-ically.

[Blue]

Not that I wouldn't buy the Tammy if it hit me over the head.

I like that Tammy 180mm with its matching 1.4x tc that I'm going to sell off the DA 55-300mm. The zoom is lighter but physically not much difference considering the Tammy is internal focus and the DA zoom extends with FL etc. As a result I have been using it exclusively over the past 3 months and the 55-300mm hasn't seen the light of day. However, it is AF and the tammy is not.