[normhead]

My base kit is my K-1 and DFA 28-105, Sigma 24 2.8 macro, DA*55 1.4.m, DA 55-300 PLM
or K-3, DA 16-85, DA DA 55-300 PLM, DA*55 1.4

Single k3 lens for walk around DA 18-135
Single K-1 lens for was around... DFA 28-105

Lenses and purposes.

DFA 100 macro - macro and walk around (mushrooms, flowers)
DA* 200 short telephoto, large birds and wildlife.
Tamron 300 2.8 - birds and wildlife
DA* 60-250, low light walk around.
DA*55- 1.4 - indoor events
SIgma 8-16 and DA 10-17 ultra wide and fisheye
Rokinon 14 2.8, astro photography.
FAJ 18-35.... real estate images.

So here's the thing, every one of those lenses was bought for a specific purpose, and without that lens for that reason, I can't do what that lens does. It's sad, but kit lenses don't do everything.

After an initial aquistion phase just trying to cover the basics, every lens was added for a specific reason, and increased the number and type of images I'm able to take. So the original concept is flawed. I do more, because I have more.

One might argue I have many lenses I don't use often. Those are to prevent malaise. When un-inspired, I'll think , OK, today lets see what I can get out of the FA 35-80. Sometimes I just need a change of pace.

The 35-80 is there as back up to my 28-105.
The 70 macro is a backup for my DFA 100
The DA *60-250 and DA*200 are there as the back up for my DA 55-300 PLM. In fact, I bought the DA*200 when my DA*60-250 was away being repaired. Thanks forum. I read over and over about lenses taking to long to be repaired. My DA*60-250 was repaired in 10 days, and was home before I'd taken 10 images with the DA*200. Forum complainers cost me $1000. Maybe why I take them so lightly.

In any case lenses increase functionality and lead to a more interesting experience. I pay more money to do more things. I keep my life interesting by engaging in different types of photography, and each category requires it's own equipment. On my daily dog walk, sometimes shots of the dogs, sometimes mushrooms, sometimes birds, sometimes images of friends who have come on hikes. Sometimes if I take my camera on the dog walk 4 times in week, I'll take the DA 18-135, or the DA 16-85, the DA*60-250, the DA*200, DFA 28-105, DA 55-300 PLM, FA 50 macro, the Sigma 70 macro, or the DFA 100 macro. And I look for a different type of image with each lens. It keeps things from getting stale.

If you buy a lens for a specific purpose, you expand your world photographically. You shoot more. I've had many, "I'm tired of the DA 18-135, I'll take the 100 macro as my sole lens" type of days.

I feel so happy for anyone who needs only kit lenses to do everything they want to do photographically. But if you're committed to having kit that allows you to particape in four kinds of photography , macro (flowers and insects), landscape (kit plus or primes), wildlife, birds, on a single walk, I have the ability to get 4 times as many images. The only thing wrong with the OPs comment is the lack of recognition as to why some of us have so many lenses. It's about capability. And saying one lens would do everything I want to do would be next to insane. So ya, there's a law of diminishing returns, although, my lenses lives will also be a lot longer because usage is spread around. But, if you don't buy the right lens for each specific area of photography, you can't even participate. Reduced lenses for many would mean reduced capability and less enjoyment.

Based on years of reading the forum, most people buy lenses for a specific capability, something they wish to investigate and participate in. Hinting they could get by with a kit lens is in most cases nonsense.

Cutting back below a certain level just means you're going to have occasions where you get fewer images because you don't have the right lens. IN that sense having a well selected stable of lens means you will be more efficient in capturing the images you find. So cost inefficiency is balanced against capture efficiency. Some of us have had the experience of missing out on a fantastic image because we didn't have the right lens and know the feeling of missing out, because we weren't prepared. Having the right lenses for what you want to do may be financially governed by the law of diminishing returns, but your photography is diminished by not having the lenses you need. So as in many things, if you just look at the money, you'll hurt your performance and your enjoyment. If you want to make the most of your opportunities, you need lenses for specific types of photography. And you need to own them. When that small moth is out there on the flower you need that macro lens now. Or the shot is gone.

So what do you want, money? Or a more satisfying photographic experience. If you just want money, don't buy a camera, unless you can make money with it. That would be the "Reductio ad absurdum". But it does illustrate the issue of trying to think about how much your lenses sit on shelf, as opposed to what each lens gives you that your other lenses do not. The original thought implies redundancy, and I have many lenses that overlap in that they do the same things most of the time, but each has function that belongs solely to that lens, that makes it worth keeping even if I only use it once a year. And that is my issue with kit lenses. They are for generalists, the are good for 50% of everything, but they don't allow specialization. But having only one kit as my only lens would cost me more than 50% of my photos.

So essentially, I'd reject this proposition in it's entirety. You need what you need. You spend the money to get the lenses that are for what you want to shoot. I don't see how missing half the available images I take would be in any way "efficient"
except, financially, and it is so hard seeing a great shot but don't have the right lens for you soon realize, photographically, overkill is better than not having the right gear for the images you want to take.

So my short response is "Do you want to be a banker, or a photographer?"
Or to be more precise do you want monetary efficiency ( a lot of use of a few lenses), or photographic efficiency (a higher capture rate of the photo ops you experience.) As in many things, you can't have both, and most of us go for a compromise, a lens for every type of image we take that we can afford without breaking the bank.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-11-2022 at 09:30 AM.

[pepperberry farm]

Seriously, I do understand the point of the post. Our "Single In" challenge illustrates what can be achieved with minimal equipment. I could actually get along pretty well with one lens. I'd spend the money on the absolute best lens available between 18 and 24 for APS-C or between 28 and 35 for 24x36 format.

that's why the "ignore this post" button is one of my favorite things about this forum....

[Michaelina2]

...but the others I bought new and I lost money with each sale...

You may feel a "loss"... I try to reframe it as "tuition."

If I had not taken the leap, I may never had known success. The Q7+08 being the best of the best (all-around), closely followed by the K-3 MkIII (nature), If I were to rank things high on a “glad I took the challenge” scale.

Cheers and enjoy the season... M

[MossyRocks]

I will admit that my LBA has gone down a lot as there just aren't that many lenses I am looking for. That doesn't mean I won't scoop up something I see locally like I did with an A* 200/2.8 recently however even there I am on the look out for lenses to use for astro. That is also one of those corners of photography where throwing gear, especially fast great prime lenses, at the problem really does offer big gains in the final result. I have a feeling that if I go and look at the actual shot counts my specialty glass probably has more clicks than my more standard glass. In this case I am referring to my Laowa 12/2.8 Zero-D, Samyang/Rokinon 135/2 UMC, SMC A* 200/2.8, and SMC A* 400/2.8 ED [IF]. Of those the 200/2.8 is probably not there yet but that is because I only got it a little more than a month ago and have only had it out for astro 2 times. Even outside of those 4 I will use most of my other lenses for astro shooting and pile up shots with them with the K 35/2 and A 50/1.2 probably being my next most used lenses for astro.

I treat photography as a hobby and any money I get from it is purely incidental but it is nice what people want an image of mine or it gets featured some place. It is still cheaper than a lot of hobbies, I could take up quilting like my wife and spend some serious money.

[VictorDA]

I'm pretty sure most of us here are

OK, we reached the second page now, and I need to revise my judgement.
I stand by: the OP' content seems common sense to me (and obviously does not exclude the need/desire/lust for more than just a kit lens, if one reads it in full and takes into account the OP's track record and gear collection),
BUT I clearly underestimated the level of denial of numerous participants in this forum!
Hey, I like lenses just as much as the next Pentaxian but let's face it -- at least 99% of us are more limited by their skill and/or creative vision than by their gear... This obviously includes myself and I say that in the most friendly and benevolent way!

[biz-engineer]

It's sad, but kit lenses don't do everything.

Of course the kit lenses don't do everything, and, depending on who use them, can be low value. @LeRolls does almost exclusively female model portraits, for him, the highest value lens is an 85 f1.4 lens and every added lens would produce very little imagery for the money paid. When I realize some of my lenses get little use, the price paid appear to be very expensive per outing, rental would be better than ownership. Full ownership for the most used lenses, rental for the lenses seldom used.

---------- Post added 11-03-22 at 18:01 ----------

that's why the "ignore this post" button is one of my favorite things about this forum....

If claiming the ignore can boost self-esteem (getting that sense of superiority), why not, I have nothing against it.

[normhead]

OK, we reached the second page now, and I need to revise my judgement.
I stand by: the OP' content seems common sense to me (and obviously does not exclude the need/desire/lust for more than just a kit lens, if one reads it in full and takes into account the OP's track record and gear collection),
BUT I clearly underestimated the level of denial of numerous participants in this forum!
Hey, I like lenses just as much as the next Pentaxian but let's face it -- at least 99% of us are more limited by their skill and/or creative vision than by their gear... This obviously includes myself and I say that in the most friendly and benevolent way!

There are many images you cannot physically take, regardless of skill level, without a specialized lens. You can say you couldn't get an image because of your skill level, it's possible, but you didn't get the image because you didn't have the right lens is just as likely.

For small lowers and a standard macro is key.. (100 macro)


For birding long telephotos are necessary... (Tamron 300 2.8 and 1.4 TC)


For wildlife mid range telephotos are usually good. (DA*60-250 @ 250mm)


For urban architecture (Sigma 8-16 at 8mm) Without a UWA you don't even get half the building.


You want that fisheye look to some of your images, you need a fisheye. (DA 10-17 @11mm.) The distortion of the fisheye enhances this image.


For narrow DoF, a fast lens is the only thing that gets you there. DA*55 1.4 at 1.4


It doesn't take huge amounts of skill to get these images with the right lens. Your lack of skill in other areas is irrelevant. You simply don't get these images, without the lenses.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't want any of those images." But to say your photographic horizons wouldn't be expanded if you owned them would be a case of not knowing what you're missing. I'd be first to agree, 50% or more of my images are taken with kit type lenses, based on the number of photo ops. But it's actually shots like the above that are the sprinkles on the donut.

I could probably post 1000s of non-kit lens images that couldn't have been taken with a kit lens, an 100s that could only that have been taken with the one lens it was taken with looking at the lenses in my collection.

There's nothing wrong with saying taking those types of images doesn't interest you. That may be incomprehensible to many of us. But it's still a good answer if true. Everyone's different. They make great Bridge cameras for that type of person. The big advantage to Interchangeable lens Cameras (ILCs) is the ability to extend your shooting horizons with specialty lenses.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-11-2022 at 01:09 PM.

[texandrews]

Well, I have a different perspective (Ha ha, see what I did there? Drum/cymbal rim shot...). As someone who does some pro work, I have "insurance" lenses. Just bought one, in fact, the Irix 11 which was on sale for a rockin' deal.

I have lenses that I most likely won't use/very infrequently use for my personal work---like this new Irix, and my 645 25 and 645 150-300 lenses, but that can be go-to lenses for the pro work, even if they don't get a bunch of use. But when I use them I really do need them. And the thing is, with Pentax's rich used market and often fairly reasonable new lens prices, I am comfortable adding these lenses off and on. I don't get itchy about not using them much.

[Wheatfield]

So what this all boils down to, basically, is that cameras and lenses are like doughnuts; buying two or more costs more money than buying just one.

Well that's a cruller way of putting it, but yes.

[photoptimist]

Hmmm... I agree at one level, but disagree on two other levels.

First, I agree because most of the images shot with (for example) a 28mm lens could have been shot with just about any 28mm-equivalent lens on the planet (except for some really crappy lenses). Thus, it is true that once a photographer has a focal length covered, they don't need another lens with that focal length for most photography.

Second, I disagree (just a bit) because in the context of high-end, professional, or fine art photography, getting the shot may require a specific lens with a larger aperture, sharper corner-to-corner resolution, round aperture blades (for circular bokeh), straight aperture blades (for sun stars), better coatings (less flare for back-lit subjects), soft focus, closer MFD, tilt/shift, etc. Although the kit lens zoom is good enough to get the snapshot version of the scene, only a specifically speced lens can get the high-dollar version of the image. Moreover, in the context of professional photography, the client might expect the photographer to have the right tool for the job. Thus buying another lens expands the range of photography the photographer can offer and increases the likely price they can get for their best images. That is, there can be increasing returns for buying more lenses to have the right tool and provide better service to clients.

I'm also going to disagree (just a bit) because the premise of the diminishing-returns notion is that the only reason to buy a lens is to make photographs. But that's not the only point of the hobby. Some people love collecting -- each 28mm lens they buy is special and valuable in it's own right because of it's history, rarity, or the enjoyable quest for the bargain. Next, some people love experimenting with photographic equipment -- each 28mm lens they get is special and valuable in it's own right because they get to see how different lenses (of the same focal length) can create different images even if the difference is subtle. Finally, some people view photography as a status symbol -- being the first in their peer group to get the latest and greatest LeicaZeisslander 28mm f/1.4 proves they have the resources to get another chunk of chest candy.

Thus, LBA can have constant or even increasing returns for some photographers even if it has decreasing returns for other photographers.

[pepperberry farm]

If claiming the ignore can boost self-esteem (getting that sense of superiority), why not, I have nothing against it.

not at all - the ignore button gives any and every one the opportunity to browse these forums without the distracting chaff or personalities that crop up on public forums ..

it's a wonderful tool ...

(:

[Wheatfield]

OK, we reached the second page now, and I need to revise my judgement.
I stand by: the OP' content seems common sense to me (and obviously does not exclude the need/desire/lust for more than just a kit lens, if one reads it in full and takes into account the OP's track record and gear collection),
BUT I clearly underestimated the level of denial of numerous participants in this forum!
Hey, I like lenses just as much as the next Pentaxian but let's face it -- at least 99% of us are more limited by their skill and/or creative vision than by their gear... This obviously includes myself and I say that in the most friendly and benevolent way!

When I was in the business of commercial photography, every purchase I made was through the lens of how much use would I get from it, how much money would I make from it and how long would it take me to amortize it.

Now that I am back to being a hobby photographer the equation is much simpler: do I want it, and can I afford it.
That is the only justification a hobbyist needs to make.
Do you want to collect 50mm lenses? How many do you want ( for me it was 18).
Fine, go ahead and collect them. It's your hobby and you don't have to justify what it costs to anyone but yourself.
Do you want the best 85mm lens in the world to shoot cat pictures? Buy a DFA*85/1.4 and get every whisker as sharp as you like.
And if anyone asks you to justify it, kick them where it hurts, because it's not their business.
And if they say it is, kick them again.

[AggieDad]

Owning lots of cameras and lenses completely hijack the value for money of image results.

Photographers should be aware of this.

But hobbyists won't care!

[normhead]

But hobbyists won't care!

It's more than hobbyists who won't care... Even pros can buy lenses for recreational use rather than commercial.

[luftfluss]

You may feel a "loss"... I try to reframe it as "tuition."

I feel that I've learned something from every lens I've used, including the ones I disliked.