[IsaacReaves]

The correct number of lenses to own is 3, following a 70/20/10 percentage rule in terms of usage.

At least that's my rule. If someone else's number is 38 who am I to argue? I only benefit from a healthy secondary market.

[Wheatfield]

The correct number of lenses to own is 3, following a 70/20/10 percentage rule in terms of usage.

At least that's my rule. If someone else's number is 38 who am I to argue? I only benefit from a healthy secondary market.

Or, the correct number is 100 following a 1/1/1/......% rule in terms of usage.

There is, in fact, no correct number of lenses to own.

[IsaacReaves]

Or, the correct number is 100 following a 1/1/1/......% rule in terms of usage.

There is, in fact, no correct number of lenses to own.

indeed, that was the point of my rather deadpan joke. There is no correct number. If a person has the money to spend on an object that brings them any small sliver of joy or utility then they should feel free to do so without the slightest hint of remorse. Whether someone "needs" it or not isn't the point. A free society doesn't need to justify itself to such a microscopic degree in the company of relative strangers. There is nothing amoral about fulfilling a desire or an emotional need. Stripped bare, the intent of "because I want one" doesn't need to be rationalized. The diversity found in the creation of creative instruments and materials is born from an intellectual need to explore and create new things. How is someone to know what meets their needs or provide to them the more valuable gift of inspiration if they don't have the opportunity to try it for themselves? I don't want to live in such a heavily permissioned world that would so easily forsake this process in favoring the anti-intellectual exercise of thrift.

There is in fact a strong benefit to these small accumulations of idle material wealth. Collections of creative tools and materials lying about, unused and potentially unloved, may be transferred to someone young and curious. With a bit of luck, we might can instill into them a passion they didn't realize they had before. The calculus of worth of an object or possession transcends these small slivers of time elapsed during acquisition. A box full of gear sold for pennies on the dollar to a kid down the street is a marvelous investment.

[que es tu]

indeed, that was the point of my rather deadpan joke. There is no correct number. If a person has the money to spend on an object that brings them any small sliver of joy or utility then they should feel free to do so without the slightest hint of remorse. Whether someone "needs" it or not isn't the point. A free society doesn't need to justify itself to such a microscopic degree in the company of relative strangers. There is nothing amoral about fulfilling a desire or an emotional need. Stripped bare, the intent of "because I want one" doesn't need to be rationalized. The diversity found in the creation of creative instruments and materials is born from an intellectual need to explore and create new things. How is someone to know what meets their needs or provide to them the more valuable gift of inspiration if they don't have the opportunity to try it for themselves? I don't want to live in such a heavily permissioned world that would so easily forsake this process in favoring the anti-intellectual exercise of thrift.

There is in fact a strong benefit to these small accumulations of idle material wealth. Collections of creative tools and materials lying about, unused and potentially unloved, may be transferred to someone young and curious. With a bit of luck, we might can instill into them a passion they didn't realize they had before. The calculus of worth of an object or possession transcends these small slivers of time elapsed during acquisition. A box full of gear sold for pennies on the dollar to a kid down the street is a marvelous investment.

Well said! And may The Schwartz be with you!

[Rondec]

People rarely compare the results two different lenses will render on a similar photo situation. I opposed the costly DFA* 70-200 mm f/2.8 ED WR professional zoom to the more mundane HD DA 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED WR in shooting a picture of freshly cut logs from the exact same position with both lenses @ 85 mm Focal Length. The upper picture was with the DFA* 70-200 mm at its optimal aperture of f/8, the lower one with the HD DA 16-85 mm at its optimal aperture of f/11. Apart from a slight color variation in the snow and the color of the wood, both images are practically indistinguishable. The different apertures produce slightly different Depth of Field in the background and help identify which image is which. Sharpness is very similar. The color rendering of the DFA* telephoto zoom is a little colder while the color rendering of the HD DA zoom is a little warmer. The main differences : PRICE (2000 $ for the DFA*, 500 $ for the HD DA) and WEIGHT (4,5 pounds for the DFA* and 1 pound for the HD DA). The DFA* is thus more unwieldy to use, being super heavy, while the HD DA weighs nothing and is easier to handle. So, same final results on a K3 III @ 4 times the price and weight !

The point of the DFA *70-200 is to cover people who need a lens that goes to 200mm and f2.8. If you talk to wedding photographers (my wife is one), they will tell you that their bread and butter lenses are 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and 85mm f1.4. You simply can't shoot in low light at f8 or f11.

I suppose in one sense you are right. If you only shoot stopped down a bunch and if you don't need lenses that go beyond 100mm, you can save quite a bit of money.

I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but probably the easiest thing is a comparison of primes. For instance comparing the DFA *85 to the FA 77, you find that the FA 77 is smaller, is screw driven, has relatively fast auto focus, but isn't terribly precise, whereas the DFA *85 has better edge sharpness at wide apertures, has a half stop faster aperture, silent auto focus, and significantly less purple fringing. You could find similar comparisons with the FA 50 f1.4 and the DFA *50. Whether you need the more modern, but more expensive lens, depends on your shooting needs.

[Jonathan Mac]

People rarely compare the results two different lenses will render on a similar photo situation. I opposed the costly DFA* 70-200 mm f/2.8 ED WR professional zoom to the more mundane HD DA 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED WR in shooting a picture of freshly cut logs from the exact same position with both lenses @ 85 mm Focal Length. The upper picture was with the DFA* 70-200 mm at its optimal aperture of f/8, the lower one with the HD DA 16-85 mm at its optimal aperture of f/11. Apart from a slight colour variation in the snow and the colour of the wood, both images are practically indistinguishable. The different apertures produce slightly different Depth of Field in the background and help identify which image is which. Sharpness is very similar. The colour rendering of the DFA* telephoto zoom is a little colder while the colour rendering of the HD DA zoom is a little warmer. The main differences : PRICE (2000 $ for the DFA*, 500 $ for the HD DA) and WEIGHT (4,5 pounds for the DFA* and 1 pound for the HD DA). The DFA* is thus more unwieldy to use, being super heavy, while the HD DA weighs nothing and is easier to handle. So, same final results on a K3 III @ 4 times the price and weight !

Sharpness at f/8 or f/11 at a particular focal length is not what you pay for in a new lens. If it isn't sharp at f/8 then don't buy it. What you pay for in a new lens is focal length, speed and image quality at the maximum aperture value. Beyond that there's build quality, compatibility, weather resistance, focusing speed, in-lens focus motor and other niceties that don't affect the optical properties.

[Sandy Hancock]

Sorry, but I'm confused.

Why would anyone buy a high end, expensive, heavy and bulky fast telephoto zoom lens when they *never* shoot it wide open?

[Wheatfield]

Sorry, but I'm confused.

Why would anyone buy a high end, expensive, heavy and bulky fast telephoto zoom lens when they *never* shoot it wide open?

More to the point, why does anyone have the hubris to make any sort of unsolicited comment regarding how another person spends their money?
I love being a hobbiest. I don't have to justify my purchases to anyone but myself. I want a DFA*85/1.4 to take cat pictures, that's my business not anyone else's.
I want to buy a Sawstop cabinet saw to make finger joints, that's my thing, not someone else's.
I think one of the biggest failures people can have is butting into other peoples benign affairs uninvited.
A person may not like how I'm spending my discretionary income, but it isn't their place to care or comment, so please butt out. Take your dog for a walk or go and do something else useful. Just stay out of my business.

[StiffLegged]

Sorry, but I'm confused.

Why would anyone buy a high end, expensive, heavy and bulky fast telephoto zoom lens when they *never* shoot it wide open?

Chuckle chuckle!

[BigMackCam]

Far from me to start a controversy with my testing of a DFA* 70-200 mm f/2.8 VS an HD DA 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6. I was just curious to see the resulting pictures provided by both lenses used in a similar situation. The DFA* 70-200 mm is the "Gold Standard" by which most other lenses are compared and graded. Realizing that both lenses produced practically the same final result just made me more confident when I point the HD DA 16-85 mm towards any subject.

Both of them are multi-element opto-mechanical wonders and I know they should produce a picture that will fulfill my needs. I have 3 main criteria : 1) Edge-to-edge sharpness 2) Optimum contrast 3) Absence of flare or veiling when pointing the lens towards a light source.

I think the point others were more-or-less making, Richard - and I'll respectfully add my own voice, here - is that most lenses... including "consumer grade" models (especially modern ones)... perform pretty well when stopped down, so comparing them at f/8 or f/11 doesn't really tell you much other than they perform as you'd hope any half-decent lens might at narrow apertures. As such, a comparison of lenses at f/8 really isn't a comparison. What you generally pay for with an expensive, modern, constant max aperture zoom is great results from the widest aperture onwards, making it a much more versatile lens in a range of situations and for a multitude of use cases (note: f/2.8 isn't just for portraits ).

Those who don't need very good, frame-wide resolution and contrast at maximum aperture and/or don't need that amount of light gathering throughout the entire focal range can probably get comparable results at f/8 from a much less expensive variable aperture lens, as you demonstrated with the HD DA16-85. Indeed, the modest DA18-50 and even the older DA18-55 kit lenses do surprisingly well at f/8. Shoot them at maximum aperture, however, and view the results at 1:1 reproduction, and they really show their weaknesses by comparison. One might question why folks would buy a more expensive constant aperture star-series lens if they don't need and utilise its performance at faster apertures, since they're paying a big premium for performance they won't use and a significant weight penalty... but then, as hobbyists we can validly buy what we enjoy - we don't have to need it to want it and own it (as my own collection of lenses demonstrates)

You're fortunate in that most of your shooting seems to be at narrow apertures in fairly decent light, so pretty much any modern lens - and many older or vintage models - will do what you need (in terms of frame-wide sharpness, at least) with impressive results. In fact, the humble DA18-50 does remarkably well against the DA16-85 at f/8, depending on focal length. You'd probably be very pleased with that lens if you haven't already tried it. It's much cheaper than the 16-85, and a fraction of the cost of the D FA*70-200... but, you know, they're all such different lenses with different value propositions, it's impossible to compare without reducing them to isolated use-cases where the benefits of better glass don't matter so much

[Wheatfield]

I think the point others were making, Richard - and I'll respectfully add my own voice, here - is that most lenses including "consumer grade" models (especially modern ones) perform well when stopped down, so comparing them at f/8 or f/11 doesn't really tell you much other than they perform as you'd hope any half-decent lens might at narrow apertures. What you generally pay for with an expensive, modern, constant f/2.8 max aperture zoom is great results from the widest aperture onwards, making it a much more versatile lens in a range of situations and for a multitude of use cases (note: f/2.8 isn't just for portraits ).

Those who don't need great, frame-wide resolution and contrast at maximum aperture and/or don't need that amount of light gathering throughout the entire focal range can probably get comparable results at f/8 from a much less expensive variable aperture lens, as you demonstrated with the HD DA16-85. Indeed, the modest DA18-50 and even the older DA18-55 kit lenses do surprisingly well at f/8. Shoot them at maximum aperture, however, and view the results at 1:1 reproduction, and they really show their weaknesses by comparison. One might question why folks would buy a more expensive constant aperture star-series lens if they don't need and utilise its performance at faster apertures... but then, as hobbyists we can validly buy what we enjoy - we don't have to need it to want it and own it

You're fortunate in that most of your shooting seems to be at narrow apertures in fairly decent light, so pretty much any modern lens - and many older or vintage models - will do what you need with impressive results...

^^^^this^^^^.
If someone is using f/8 to judge lens quality, they are displaying stunning lack of knowledge, unless the lens is an f8 mirror lens.
Any lens will be good to excellent at f/8 presuming it is of at least passable quality and isn't broken.
When I bought the DFA*50/1.4 and tested it against the FA50/1.4, a lens not known to be exceptionally good, it was very much the equal of the new lens at f8. Some would say, therefore, that the DFA* lens is a waste of money because all they do is shoot landscapes in bright sunlight at small apertures.
However, they aren't looking at where one is paying extra, which is wide open performance.
The DFA*50/1.4 is sharp enough wide open to be usable and is the only 50mm lens ive been able to say that about. The FA50/1.4 is soft to the point if being useless as anything other than a dust cap until around f/2.8.
F8 is the great equalizer of lenses, but to pretend all lenses are equal because they are equal at f/8 is decidedly wrong.

[RICHARD L.]

Sorry for the controversy ... I deleted all my previous posts, please talk about something else.

[BigMackCam]

When I bought the DFA*50/1.4 and tested it against the FA50/1.4, a lens not known to be exceptionally good, it was very much the equal of the new lens at f8. Some would say, therefore, that the DFA* lens is a waste of money because all they do is shoot landscapes in bright sunlight at small apertures.
However, they aren't looking at where one is paying extra, which is wide open performance.
The DFA*50/1.4 is sharp enough wide open to be usable and is the only 50mm lens ive been able to say that about. The FA50/1.4 is soft to the point if being useless as anything other than a dust cap until around f/2.8.

I might respectfully disagree that the FA50/1.4 isn't useful until f/2.8, but that's down to a difference in our personal tolerances and tastes. I'd definitely agree with the general point you make, though. I've used the FA50/1.4 creatively at wider apertures, even wide open, and obtained results I've been pleased with - but I'd agree, it doesn't perform well wide open or even stopped down a little, and really only begins to compare to modern lenses around f/2.8 onwards.

I'm actually a little surprised that the old FA50/1.4 gives such a decent account of itself at f/8 when compared to newer, premium glass. I'd expect it do quite well, but even so...

[texandrews]

Never fails to amaze me how photographers can get so heated about equipment---and in this case about the most common FL made. How about a cool down, please?

[Theov39]

While it states an obvious truth, I don't think the Law of Diminishing Returns applies to photography unless photography is your business.

It applies in business because the point of a business is to maximize efficiency and productivity (and so profit) but I am not trying to maximize 'efficiency' or even 'productivity' when I buy lenses or cameras.

I buy them because I enjoy using them even if it's only once in a while. And that, to me, is a reward in its own right.