[kiwi_jono]

Well I certainly have more lenses than I need. I find I have some sort of weird emotional attachment to some of them and so I'm very reluctant to let them go, even though I rarely use them. Some day there will be a reckoning and I will trim down the lenses I have - honest!

However I do think that, indirectly, the new lenses have helped improve my photography skills, as when I get a new lens I get all enthusiastic with it and go around shooting lots of stuff (a lot more than normal), which improves my skills. But yes the return on investment is greatly reduced over my early days with new gear.

[BigMackCam]

Sometimes I bought a lens I was sure I would use. After I had the lens for a few years, I realized I didn't use it much. I have a couple of lenses I use a lot, but that can change over time. The lenses I use a lot were a good "investment" , other lenses not so much. I have a D-FA 50 macro, 50mm... normal FL , should be used a lot, I think I used it three times. What happens is the DFA28-105 is very good at 50mm, and I prefer the 100 macro for macros, so , the 50 macro isn't used.

The thing is, our intentions for, expectations and appraisals of, specific lenses are incredibly personal and subjective... so this process of buying lenses in the hope we'll like them, getting great use from some of them and not so much from others, feeling elation when we find one that hits the spot and becomes a regular user or disappointment with one (especially if it was expensive) that ends up being a "shelf queen"... glad we bought some, wishing we'd not bought others or realising we didn't need to... this is a journey that most of us will have to go through, drawing our own personal conclusions along the way. We can't rely on reviews or even the well-intentioned, well-informed opinions of respected forum colleagues... because the value of each lens and the reasons for that perceived value are personal to each of us, as is the process of discovery. There's no list or script that can tell us in advance what's right for each of us - we can only find that out for ourselves. This is why I tend to roll my eyes at comparisons between cameras or lenses and folks making sweeping claims - as if it's simple fact - that one is "better" than another. They can't make such claims with any credibility for anyone but themselves, and certainly not for me... not without knowing everything about my personal use-cases, preferences, tolerances, budget and more...

EDIT: For anyone who regrets buying a particular piece of gear for whatever reason, I recommend you free yourself from those regrets. It's all part of the learning experience, and even if you should flip it and lose some money along the way, you won't come away empty-handed. Specifically, you'll understand (or you should understand) why the product didn't suit your personal requirements. That knowledge is gold dust, because it tells you something about yourself as a photographer, and helps you avoid the same mistakes in future. That really is value for money

[Wheatfield]

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
This post was made by a user whom you are ignoring

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 ...

(:

Yup works like a hot damn.

[pepperberry farm]

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
This post was made by a user whom you are ignoring



Yup works like a hot damn.

oh yes!

and don't forget - it works on both threads and users!

You Tube

You Tube

[Wheatfield]

But hobbyists won't care!

Hobbyists not only won't care (about whatever you are responding to, I really don't know what that is), but they shouldn't care.
It's an inconvenient truth that hobbyists who are serious about their craft will turn out better work than practically all the pros out there, the reason being they don't have to justify expenses, they don't have to deliver a job on a time frame that may say this is as good as can be done, they don't have to work under the business constraints that a pro works under, and because what a pro does for money rarely evokes the same passion as what the hobbyist does for love.

---------- Post added Mar 11th, 2022 at 04:01 PM ----------

oh yes!

and don't forget - it works on both threads and users!

I only found this thread because I follow you.

[texandrews]

It's an inconvenient truth that hobbyists who are serious about their craft will turn out better work than practically all the pros out there, the reason being they don't have to justify expenses, they don't have to deliver a job on a time frame that may say this is as good as can be done, they don't have to work under the business constraints that a pro works under, and because what a pro does for money rarely evokes the same passion as what the hobbyist does for love.

This is almost true...but not quite. I think pros are a lot like carpenters: there are framing carpenters swinging 20oz waffle heads and coil nailers or big nail guns spitting out 16 pennies, there are door and window specialists who might even be screwing things in, and there are finish carpenters who may use tiny finish hammers and pin guns....and everything in between. There are cabinet makers who are cranking out kitchen cabinets of melamine on particle board, and there are furniture makers doing extraordinarily fine work. For the record, I've done all of that.

Very few of even the best amateurs are producing work as beautiful as the photographers at the Getty, though. OTOH, there are lots of dedicated amateurs who are truly excellent at their craft and in terms of their subject/content choices.

[RobA_Oz]

To understand why we collect lenses (and other things) that we hardly ever use requires some study, but I imagine it largely comes down to the urge that drives most of us to live, once we’ve developed beyond Maslow’s first three levels of need (two, if we’re not particularly sociable). We surround ourselves with “stuff” because it reinforces our underlying rejection of our own mortality.

Do I care why? Not much, except for purely academic interest. Buying lenses and camera bodies is potentially (note that word) more utilitarian than collecting beer cans, although the latter can occasionally be more profitable.

[pepperberry farm]

I only found this thread because I follow you.

you must be insane to follow this path.....

(:

[BigMackCam]

To understand why we collect lenses (and other things) that we hardly ever use requires some study, but I imagine it largely comes down to the urge that drives most of us to live, once we’ve developed beyond Maslow’s first three levels of need (two, if we’re not particularly sociable). We surround ourselves with “stuff” because it reinforces our underlying rejection of our own mortality.

Hmmm... that may be true for some, but is it really that deep? I don't reject my own mortality... Personally, I just find it enjoyable to play with lenses (and cameras, and other gear - both photography and non-photography related). I've worked my entire life to survive, pay bills, and not be a burden on anyone else. With what's left over, I intend to have some fun whilst I'm able to do so, and photography - along with the gear it involves - is a nice, innocent enough pursuit of that... But if I have to get rid of some or all of my gear sooner or later (and the way the economy and global energy situation is developing, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that comes to fruition eventually), so be it... it's just "stuff". Water, food, shelter, clothing and heating are the priorities, with medication and transportation following closely afterwards. Beyond those, whilstever I have cheap second-hand books to read, a cheap transistor radio to listen to, and / or my neighbourhood and surrounding countryside to walk around, I'll consider myself extremely fortunate compared to many and have all the diversion and entertainment I could humbly wish for. While funds allow, though, I see no harm in enjoying a few cameras and lenses. It's certainly not going to have any effect on my mortality or my accute awareness of its fragility. As Ben Franklin famously quoted, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes"

[stevebrot]

LBA is one of those things I have heard about, but which I has not been a problem for me. I have a fair number of lenses, but the rate of acquisition has been deliberate and all were acquired for a particular purpose with no regrets. Strangely, only a few were bought on impulse and again, no regrets, despite some being fairly exotic (at least at the time) optics.

I know...boring...


Steve

[RobA_Oz]

Hmmm... that may be true for some, but is it really that deep? I don't reject my own mortality... Personally, I just find it enjoyable to play with lenses (and cameras, and other gear - both photography and non-photography related). I've worked my entire life to survive, pay bills, and not be a burden on anyone else. With what's left over, I intend to have some fun whilst I'm able to do so, and photography - along with the gear it involves - is a nice, innocent enough pursuit of that... But if I have to get rid of some or all of my gear sooner or later (and the way the economy and global energy situation is developing, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that comes to fruition eventually), so be it... it's just "stuff". Water, food, shelter, clothing and heating are the priorities, with medication and transportation following closely afterwards. Beyond those, whilstever I have cheap second-hand books to read, a cheap transistor radio to listen to, and / or my neighbourhood and surrounding countryside to walk around, I'll consider myself extremely fortunate compared to many and have all the diversion and entertainment I could humbly wish for. While funds allow, though, I see no harm in enjoying a few cameras and lenses. It's certainly not going to have any effect on my mortality or my accute awareness of its fragility. As Ben Franklin famously quoted, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes"

Ah well, I did say “underlying” rejection. My rational self acknowledges my mortality, but I press on into old age determined to finish all those planned home improvements, and to restore my Light Fifteen Citroen, as if I’ve got all the time in the world.

Not to mention acquiring the occasional new lens.

[Rondec]

Hobbyists not only won't care (about whatever you are responding to, I really don't know what that is), but they shouldn't care.
It's an inconvenient truth that hobbyists who are serious about their craft will turn out better work than practically all the pros out there, the reason being they don't have to justify expenses, they don't have to deliver a job on a time frame that may say this is as good as can be done, they don't have to work under the business constraints that a pro works under, and because what a pro does for money rarely evokes the same passion as what the hobbyist does for love.

---------- Post added Mar 11th, 2022 at 04:01 PM ----------



I only found this thread because I follow you.

I suppose it all depends. Professionals find two or three lenses that work for them and then use them to the best of their ability. They typically have some back up as well for those -- it doesn't matter how good the service from your brand is, if you drop your 24-70 mm f2.8 in the middle of a wedding, you have to figure out how to get through the rest of the ceremony and reception.

My wife shoots professionally -- not a lot, but does family, senior photos and weddings. For a wedding she could probably get by with the DFA 24-70, 70-200 f2.8, DFA *85 and DFA 100 macro. But she also was why we sold our FA 77 limited and got the DFA *85 -- she was just tired of working with the CA on the FA 77 and is really pleased with the DFA *85. Certainly she doesn't have LBA and has little desire for more lenses. I would say she's a better photographer than I am. I can do stuff OK technically, but I don't have the vision that she has. Oh well...

[Wheatfield]

oh yes!

and don't forget - it works on both threads and users!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-zEH8YmiM

I suppose it all depends. Professionals find two or three lenses that work for them and then use them to the best of their ability. They typically have some back up as well for those -- it doesn't matter how good the service from your brand is, if you drop your 24-70 mm f2.8 in the middle of a wedding, you have to figure out how to get through the rest of the ceremony and reception.

My wife shoots professionally -- not a lot, but does family, senior photos and weddings. For a wedding she could probably get by with the DFA 24-70, 70-200 f2.8, DFA *85 and DFA 100 macro. But she also was why we sold our FA 77 limited and got the DFA *85 -- she was just tired of working with the CA on the FA 77 and is really pleased with the DFA *85. Certainly she doesn't have LBA and has little desire for more lenses. I would say she's a better photographer than I am. I can do stuff OK technically, but I don't have the vision that she has. Oh well...

My wedding photography was fairly cookie cutter in that I developed a style that sold well, and built a portfolio around it that showed I could do high quality and consistent work.
And I made a ton of money because enough people liked what I was doing to keep me working every weekend during wedding season.
But it was not my passion.
My passion was large format B&W landscapes, something I was good enough at that I won several contests, sold a fair number of prints and did a number of shows with.
I was a good journeyman wedding photographer, but because of the nature of the beast, one can only do so much with it, I was *and still am) a much better landscape shooter.
One was for money, the other was for love.

As an aside, if you are truly passionate about something, don't do it for money. The passion can escape pretty quickly if you do.

---------- Post added Mar 12th, 2022 at 09:58 AM ----------

The thing is, our intentions for, expectations and appraisals of, specific lenses are incredibly personal and subjective... so this process of buying lenses in the hope we'll like them, getting great use from some of them and not so much from others, feeling elation when we find one that hits the spot and becomes a regular user or disappointment with one (especially if it was expensive) that ends up being a "shelf queen"... glad we bought some, wishing we'd not bought others or realising we didn't need to... this is a journey that most of us will have to go through, drawing our own personal conclusions along the way. We can't rely on reviews or even the well-intentioned, well-informed opinions of respected forum colleagues... because the value of each lens and the reasons for that perceived value are personal to each of us, as is the process of discovery. There's no list or script that can tell us in advance what's right for each of us - we can only find that out for ourselves. This is why I tend to roll my eyes at comparisons between cameras or lenses and folks making sweeping claims - as if it's simple fact - that one is "better" than another. They can't make such claims with any credibility for anyone but themselves, and certainly not for me... not without knowing everything about my personal use-cases, preferences, tolerances, budget and more...

To answer directly to the thread title, the law of diminishing returns applies to everything, it's not like as if someone has suddenly come with a novel reality altering concept, it's been around since we started making stuff about a million years ago and should be a well enough known concept that it really isn't worth talking about.

[Parallax]

My passion was large format B&W landscapes,

I dabbled in that in High School when I had access to 4x5 and 8x10 cameras.

I was *and still am) a much better landscape shooter.

My absolute favorite genre is museum/documenting object type photography. This is why I prefer short(ish) lenses. I'm a lot more likely to not be able to get as far away from my subjects as I need to than I am to not be able to get close enough.
I make every effort possible to avoid photographing people. I don't like it and I'm not good at it. Which is cause and which is effect I have no idea. More than once we've come home from some family event or visit with Mrs. P mad at me because I have no pictures of people.

[biz-engineer]

To answer directly to the thread title, the law of diminishing returns applies to everything, it's not like as if someone has suddenly come with a novel reality altering concept, it's been around since we started making stuff about a million years ago and should be a well enough known concept that it really isn't worth talking about.

It's not because something is obvious that it shouldn't be said.