Curing GAS

For me it happened when I got sick of luggig around 2 camera, 4+ lenses, 3 flashes, triggers, and light stands. Shooting became a chore and I slowly started cutting back on what I took out with me. Eventually I started selling off what I no longer used and kept the bare essentials. Now I have a digital camera with 2 primes and a medium format camera with 2 primes. I never take either out at the same time and rarely take more than 1 lens with me.

A simple setup allows me to spend more time seeing and looking and less time figuring out which pieces of gear will yield the best photo. Keeping things simple and learning to work with what you have will result in more keepers in the long run.

This is me too, but with film cameras. It doesn't help that I'm particularly good at finding used stuff for cheap.

>>2742108
>I probably have spent around $1000+ on all my gear on 1 year alone

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO

you dont have GAS, youre just a poorfag. photo is kinda expensive if you want to take the serious route.

now, think of this: every buy of gear should have a functional reason behind it. you dont buy a wide angle for the fuck of it, or because "everyone should have at least one". buy it because your type of photos need it.

>>2742114

i had GAS for film cameras and cured it by getting all the ones i liked best ever.

now i buy just film, because, how much good is a camera if you have no rolls to shoot?

>>2742108
Just take some responsibility for your own actions. Exercise a bit of willpower, there's no "how do I stop myself", just don't do it. You are yourself, you're not some third party in your own life.

Make do with what you have, which is usually completely adequate for whatever you're doing anyway.

>>2742142
>Exercise a bit of willpower, there's no "how do I stop myself"

the brain doesnt work like that, pal. its like all addictions, if you dont have anything more pleasant to do, you stick to what gives you the most consistent dopamine high. he has to replace it with something more powerful, leaving a void will only translate in a relapse.

>>2742145
To compare the desire to buy more camera gear with a legitimate addiction isn't fair at all, it's not right to co-opt words like "addiction" and "relapse" for something like that. I do agree with you about filling that void with something else though, go shoot with what you already own OP. Try and put together a photo-essay or do a small project.

>>2742151
>legitimate addiction

most addictions, be it chemical or behavioral have a strong psychological component. the underlying structure is the same: you get in a pleasure-reward loop that fills a necessity, you get out of it, and you get craving. think of gambling, its as equally if not more destructive than hard drugs.

>>2742156
I understand what an addiction is, I just don't think it's fair to put such a strong word onto something like the desire to get more camera stuff. We all feel it sometimes, and I think people absolutely can control it which is what separates it out from being a diagnosable addiction in my mind.

>>2742145
by this logic a heroin addict can never stop at all.

I personally have the advantage to be a nearly neurotic minimalist. I only want what I need and I don't want to need much. But what I need and have, has to be god-tier. I for example just have one lens which I searched for months, to find it at an affordable price on the second market. And it's a hell of a lens.

I absolutely enjoy the limitation. Not in quality but in possibilities. I cannot shoot any scenario with it, so I have to find a creative solution for every scene.

I do motion picture by the way. ... yeah, and my only sin was to buy some support rigs and a mattebox and fancy looking stuff, which I absolutely don't need, just because I realized people feel more comfortable at the set when shooting with a "big-ass-camera" .. so, yeah .. that for psychological reasons .. (but it hurts everytime building up the gear with the knowledge that there is absolutely no technical benefit (because ifo-sensor NDs, filters on lens and - you know - a good lens hood .. so .. *sigh*).

>>2742145
>>2742156
GAS is not an addiction. It is a misplacement of credit for image quality and a lack of honesty about personal motivations.

"My photos would be better if I had a 24mm f/1.4..."

"I would shoot more if I had a full frame camera..."

"I would hire models if only I had a four light setup..."

>>2742159

i totally get your concern. its like people saying they are "addicted to facebook". OP might want to have good pictures and be a good photographer rather than a camera gear collector, so he suffers because of it, its an identity thing. some people are weaker and succumb to these compulsive habits more often and it makes them feel like shit.

>>2742108
> I probably have spent around $1000+ on all my gear on 1 year alone.
Eh, that's like one single good lens. Maybe quite a bit less. Depends on the lens.

> Anyhow, how can I just stop myself from watching gear reviews and wanting gear and just focus on taking photos?
You just get good gear for what you want to do next, and then do it.

>>2742164
> misplacement of credit for image quality
Technical image quality is largely gear dependent, and it's a primary factor in how overall "good" people think an image is.

Sure, more flows into that too, but you usually want good gear for image quality reasons.

>>2742180
>Technical image quality is largely gear dependent, and it's a primary factor in how overall "good" people think an image is.
No, it isn't.
Technique and planning have more of an effect on image quality than gear, unless you're comparing a 100 dollar lens to a $3000 lens. Even then, it's spotty.

And the primary factors for what makes a photo good to people are the contents of the photo, the light, the color, and the ideas/feelings it communicates. Always. No exceptions. If your camera is physically capable of capturing the photo you're attempting (correct framing, correct perspective, correct amount of light, for the correct amount of time, with the correct focus) then your gear is good enough, and a sharper lens, or a bigger sensor, or smoother bokeh will improve your photos exactly zero.

>>2742164
This. Exactly this.

Last year, I got myself a 6D because I was convinced of the thought that the bigger the sensor = the better my results. I even told myself that with a FF camera, I'd go out more often and take even more images than I've taken before. Now in fact I have sold my 6D because I almost never took it with me.. and because I fell in love with the way smaller Sony A6000. In about a year of time, my a6000 had way more clicks on its shutter counter than the 6D.. for whatever reason.
Now I have sold the a6000 and got myself a Ricoh GR II because I got sick and tired of always buying into companies and their gear but ending up selling it all after a while just because I got hooked up on some other good shit again.
Hopefully, i'll be able to 'fix' my heavy GAS in the near future.. I really do want to stay with ONE company for lore than a year. It's hard but I hope that i'll get to that point sometime soon.

>>2742115
>>2742180
>it's only $1000

I know $1000 is only like thr price of an enthusiast dslr or one great lens but it is still a good sum of money.

My boss is also into photography but the only gear he bought is a tripod. He's using an old Panasonic G1 with kit lens that he inherited from a brother. He is pushing the camera to the limit and thr limitations that his camera brings doesn't bother him at all. I on the other hand probably spends a lot of time watching gear reviews and thinking what lens can improve my photos. I got a good deal on my lenses but still I'm spending money that could have been spent elsewhere.

For the record here's my gear:
Nikon D90
Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AI
Nikkor 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 AF-D
Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 DX
Nissin Di-622 MkII
Nikon N90s or F90x film camera (a gift from a friend)
Olympus OM-1 with 50mm f1.8 OM Zuiko lens
Lots of camera accessories like bags, polarizing filter, eye-fi, tripod (gift as well) etc.

I'm kind of looking now for a portrait telephoto lens. I love manual primes and I saw a Nikkor 135mm f3.5 AI for $100 and yes I'm planning to buy it. Don't you think I have bought a lot of camera gear recently especially since all these I've got for only a year ever since I started with photography?

>>2742164

This is actually pretty well thought-out

>>2742108
lol retard.
only buy on stuff you can make money reselling.

>>2742182
>>Technical image quality is largely gear dependent, and it's a primary factor in how overall "good" people think an image is.
>Technique and planning have more of an effect on image quality than gear
It has no influence on technical image quality, unless you mean that you shoot under good rather than under bad light or something.

It's massively important to employ gear correctly to get good image quality.

> and the ideas/feelings it communicates
For portraits / art photography and maybe product photography, sure. Whereever you prepare the environment and have time.

For most kinds of people photography (street, events, sports, war...) getting this right is about having fast burst shots, heh. You don't necessarily have a trigger finger fast enough to get the exactly right moments otherwise.

Oh, you can see a possible good shot coming up with some experience, but nailing it? Fast bursts and the ability to use the ideal settings. Mostly gear.

> If your camera is physically capable of capturing the photo you're attempting [...]
... then you probably have high-end gear from the future, yes.

Current gear is getting okay, but in no way there yet. It's still a matter of somehow making do with what's available on the high end.

>>2742321
>It has no influence on technical image quality, unless you mean that you shoot under good rather than under bad light or something.
>It's massively important to employ gear correctly to get good image quality.

>employ gear correctly
>technique
Looks like you're agreeing with me.

Correct shutter speed, use of a tripod, correct aperture selection. These are more important than bench test lens sharpness when it comes to fine detail. Put a T1i with a kit lens on a tripod, shoot at a shutter speed suitable for stopping all motion, stop down to f/5.6, use a 2 second timer, focus the lens correctly, and your photos will have more sharpness than you could want.

> If your camera is physically capable of capturing the photo you're attempting [...]
>... then you probably have high-end gear from the future, yes.
Is this a joke? Because you're straddling the line into trolling territory.

I'd be happy to put my life's savings on the fact that 9 out of any 10 photos posted to /p/ could be taken equally well with a 40D and the kit lens.

>>2742215
> I got a good deal on my lenses but still I'm spending money that could have been spent elsewhere.
Whether or not that was a good expense for your hobby and / or maybe independent photography job work is up to your own evaluation, eh.

I personally think $1-2k / year can be adequate hobby photography expenses. Professional expenses will be a lot more than that even without travel and studio rent and taxes and all that.

>>2742325
> Correct shutter speed
Ability to more freely choose this is almost entirely dependent on gear.

> use of a tripod
Arguably, gear too, but at least cheap.

> correct aperture selection
No, correct lens selection. You want the lens to be perfectly sharp at the aperture you need to use.

> shoot at a shutter speed suitable for stopping all motion
Even 1/8000 - which the T1i doesn't have- isn't enough to really stop movements as they happen in sports.

And the T1i doesn't get enough light / sensor isn't sensitive enough on a setup like yours.

> stop down to f/5.6
Are you serious? At this point you can't even get walking or gesturing people without blur indoors or in whatever other sub-optimal conditions.

> and your photos will have more sharpness than you could want
And even this still needs a good lens and sensor. I'm not looking to make family album thumbnails, I want workable photos that can be cropped and edited and preferably still retain details down to fabric texture and so on.

> Is this a joke? Because you're straddling the line into trolling territory.
No, I'm serious, current lenses generally aren't good enough (especially zoom lenses, which would be convenient to use if they were better), and current camera bodies aren't perfect either.

>>2742215
this is not GAS, just a pile of low end gear that doesn't function together or complement each other. you're just a collector at this point.

however, if you're actually shooting with it, then it can be excused as starting to learn what you enjoy shooting with. it's normal to try out many styles of photography over a lifetime as needs and preferences change.

>>2742347
may I see one of your shots?

>>2742164
I used to think more like that, but lately I've mostly stopped giving a fuck about pictures and just buying gear. I do shoot more when buying new gear, if only because I have to at least run a roll through every new camera to make sure it works.

>>2742619
That's the part I hate so much. I do want to push my camera/gear to the limits, I want to see it as a tool to work with, to create images with. Instead, I am sitting in front of my screen watching gear reviews, rambling about DxO scores 'n shit and letting the media manipulate me into buying more gear.

It's depressing, actually.

>>2742622
yet, you're fully aware of it.
this is what makes the whole thing bad.. what keeps you from going out and take photos?
You know what's the problem, now go and change it.

>>2742602
>this is not GAS, just a pile of low end gear that doesn't function together or complement each other. you're just a collector at this point.

I prefer older lenses because they feel more durable and easier to manual focus. I used to have an 18-55mm kit lens but I sold it because I am not anymore using it.

>however, if you're actually shooting with it, then it can be excused as starting to learn what you enjoy shooting with. it's normal to try out many styles of photography over a lifetime as needs and preferences change.

I've been shooting landscapes a lot recently which is why the Tokina 11-16mm hardly comes off my D90. However, I want to get into portraits which is why I'm looking at the cheap 135mm f3.5 AI. Don't you think I'm jumping from one photos to another?

>>2742113

Why only one lens?

>>2742656
it's only been a year since you started photography seriously. there's no reason for you to "settle" for one genre or another at this point (or ever).

however, I question if you will be able to focus accurately with the 135 on the D90. I have no experience with that camera, but the plane of focus on a 135 is very very thin at portrait distances.

>>2742658
Do you need more than one to take a photo?

>>2742622
>letting the media manipulate me into buying more gear
shut the fuck up faggot. are you not autonomous? do you not have control over yourself? the media doesnt control you, you sad baby. Stop blaming others for your problems. You're like the fat bitch who blames tv adverts for displaying food, instead of your fat ass for eating it.

>>2742658
>A simple setup allows me to spend more time seeing and looking and less time figuring out which pieces of gear will yield the best photo.

File: reverse-lens-macro-close-up-photography-06.jpg (30KB, 600x429px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x429px

>>2742668

>>2742666
>however, I question if you will be able to focus accurately with the 135 on the D90. I have no experience with that camera, but the plane of focus on a 135 is very very thin at portrait distances.

It's largest aperture is only f3.5. But yeah you're right. The reason I'm buying it partly is because it is cheap $100 for a 135mm lens. And I can resell it easily.

File: IMG_1680ss.jpg (195KB, 1000x751px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1000x751px

>>2742668
>Do you need more than one to take a photo?
No, but you might need more than one lens to take more than one photo. For example, if I had my normal "walk around" lens, a 40mm prime, on my camera on this particular hike through the Grand Tetons, then I wouldn't have gotten this photo at all. This is a photo that I absolutely needed a telephoto lens on my camera for. There was no such thing as "well just walk closer to your subject, dummy!" since the bear might have mauled me or scampered away had I approached it.

Unless you want to totally snub a particular kind of photography, primes or zoom lenses covering several focal length ranges are really required. For me, that ends up being wide, normal, short telephoto and long telephoto. I may not take them all on every outing, and I may use a zoom that covers two or more for certain outings, but I do have about a dozen lenses that I work with, off and on, depending on the demands of a particular situation.

I really don't understand the people who whine about gear discussion ruining their precious "art studio" that they think /p/ is. Gear discussion IS NOT the same as photo critiques. We don't want to hear from you that buying another lens won't make us better photographers. That was never the question. The question is about the technical merits of the gear. Both types of discussion are necessary to people interested in this hobby. It's not enough for you to say that only amateurs engage in gearfagging because even seasoned professional photographers discuss the equipment they use.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:08:02 21:43:17
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	44.40 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2742708
I understand what you're saying, but different strokes for different folks. I've been shooting for 10 years and have slowly simplified my approach more and more. In all honesty I believe I've missed opportunities in the past when I had lots of gear on hand Instead of focusing on making what I have attached to my camera work (adapting) I tried multiple combinations and either wound up with mediocre shots or extremely typical and obvious shots.

Just because you only have 1 lens doesn't mean you miss out on the number of good photos you can potentially walk away with. It simply means you have to adapt and perhaps shoot things in a way that isn't instantly intuitive. Getting more gear can lead you to getting shots you couldn't otherwise have achieved (super wide angle, telephoto, whatever) but I don't think it leads to an increase in the number of keepers. The difference between good photographers and fantastic photographers is their eye, and most often their unique eye. By having all of the tools you could ever possibly need you're less likely to try things out of the box. You'll see a bear and think "shit, better slap on my 300mm and get a nice close-up" and it will end up looking like your photo...a great snapshit for memories and sharing with friends when you tell them you saw a bear...but extremely lacking in terms of photographic and creative merit. Same shit goes for landscape photographers who never take off their ultra-wide and always throw flowers in the bottom corner with amazing sunset clouds soaring over them.

Learning how to achieve great results with a minimum amount of gear in a large variety of situations is one of the most important skills one can learn as a photographer (and if you broaden this whole idea it transcends into lots of other areas of life).

>>2742757 cont...
So yeah, you were able to take a mediocre close-up photo of a bear. If it's to show people you saw a bear, cool. If your intent was to walk away with a photo that would be memorable to others, you failed. If I want a good quality upclose photo of a bear there are thousands of others better than this just a quick google away.

I bet had you watched, thought, and waited you could have walked away with a photo that tells more of a story using that 40mm pancake lens. Maybe until the bear was completely isolated against sun-drenched rocks, maybe he would have sat up at one point. But maybe none of this would have happened. Maybe he would have walked out of site and you would be left with no photo period. But at least you would have probably spent more time appreciating and watching him rather than switching lenses and trying to get 'the shot'.

Many people, especially beginners, would benefit from really getting to know how to successfully use a minimal amount of equipment. It doesn't have to be a prime. Zooms are cool too. It's once you have multiple bodies, film backs, and lenses to pick from 'in the moment' that the returns start diminishing.

More time spent looking and observing, less time thinking about which lens you need. That's just my opinion, man...

>>2742757
Pro here and all I can say is that like you since you're inexperienced and only an amateur, a single lens is enough.

But for me, my minimum for a shoot is at least two bodies. You got to have that insurance if one of your cameras fail. For the lens, it depends on the paid work. I've been able to pull of photoshoots by only using a kit lens but things like having a tripod is essential.

Watch the pro photographer, cheap camera series on DRTV. The photos are good but shooting them on better gear should be preferred.

>>2742757
>Just because you only have 1 lens doesn't mean you miss out...It simply means you have to adapt and perhaps shoot things in a way that isn't instantly intuitive.
No, it does mean that you miss shots. O did the entire point of my post go right over your head?

>but I don't think it leads to an increase in the number of keepers.
Irrelevant. The rate of keepers is going to stay the same, very obviously, but that's not the point. The point is range of subjects, not quality of photos.

>You'll see a bear and think "shit, better slap on my 300mm and get a nice close-up" and it will end up looking like your photo...a great snapshit for memories and sharing with friends when you tell them you saw a bear...but extremely lacking in terms of photographic and creative merit.
And thus begins the story of the fox and the grapes.

>Learning how to achieve great results with a minimum amount of gear in a large variety of situations is one of the most important skills one can learn as a photographer
That sound like more fox talk to me.

>>2742766
>So yeah, you were able to take a mediocre close-up photo of a bear. If it's to show people you saw a bear, cool. If your intent was to walk away with a photo that would be memorable to others, you failed. If I want a good quality upclose photo of a bear there are thousands of others better than this just a quick google away.
>Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked "Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes."

>I bet had you watched, thought, and waited you could have walked away with a photo that tells more of a story using that 40mm pancake lens.
You would have lost the bet. The bear disappeared into the foliage a few seconds later.

>>2742771
>"Pro here"
>"I totally agree with this guy, only one lens is enough!! :^)"
>, he says as the IP count of the thread does not increase

>>2742771
We aren't talking about paid work though. We are talking about leisurely photography. Obviously if you're doing a paid gig you need multiple bodies just in case shit goes wrong and also so you're not switching lenses. I get that.

If you're on a leisure hike in the mountains and are snapping photos along the way you don't need 3 lenses and odds are having those choices is going to cause you to miss shots and not shoot as creatively as you could.

>>2742771
Last wedding I went to, the photographer and his point man had a minimum of five lenses going between the two of them, through the course of the reception dinner and the following day's wedding.

But one lens is enough for professional work. Sure.

>>2742776
>No, it does mean that you miss shots. O did the entire point of my post go right over your head?
What I'm saying is you miss the shots that you instinctively think about. The ones that require no thought. Snapshits.

>The point is range of subjects, not quality of photos.
So the quality of the photos doesn't matter? It's just the amount of subjects you can capture? Isn't that the definition of snapshitting?

>And thus begins the story of the fox and the grapes.
>That sound like more fox talk to me.
Call it what you want. I'm not saying this because I can't afford more gear. I used to carry around lots of gear every time I went out. I realized it was limiting me and cut back. Since then I get more keepers and notice more nuances within compositions.

>You would have lost the bet. The bear disappeared into the foliage a few seconds later.
Well then see my later point. In the end you didn't get to appreciate seeing a bear as much as you could have because at some point you were fiddling with changing your lens. In the end you wound up with a crappy photo. Again, if that's what you do photography for then great. If you actually want to become better and make memorable images I think taking a step back from the amount of gear you use would be beneficial.

File: Untitled-1.jpg (843KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

843KB, 1920x1200px

>>2742778
Since when did this turn into a discussion of professional work? Talking about amateur, leisure photography vs professional is apples to oranges.

Obviously you don't need a racing helmet, shoes, and gloves if you commute everyday to work in your Kia Sorento. But if you're a F1 driver maybe you do...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:12 18:06:45
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1200

>>2742780
>What I'm saying is you miss the shots that you instinctively think about. The ones that require no thought. Snapshits.
That doesn't even make sense. So, all telephoto nature photography is "snapshits" to you, then?

>So the quality of the photos doesn't matter?
Thanks for confirming that you don't read posts. I said that the quality of photos - the keeper rate - would obviously be the same.
>It's just the amount of subjects you can capture? Isn't that the definition of snapshitting?
"Snapshitting" is teenager slang that has no formal definition. It sounds like you are just upset because there are focal length ranges that other people can use that you can not.

>Call it what you want. I'm not saying this because I can't afford more gear. I used to carry around lots of gear every time I went out. I realized it was limiting me and cut back. Since then I get more keepers and notice more nuances within compositions.
What if the grapes weren't sour? Would you still have given up on them?

>Well then see my later point. In the end you didn't get to appreciate seeing a bear as much as you could have because at some point you were fiddling with changing your lens. In the end you wound up with a crappy photo. Again, if that's what you do photography for then great.
What the fuck do you know about me, fox fuck? FYI, I had the telephoto lens on the camera already. I might have ended up with a photo that has some blown highlights, but the fact is that it's better than what you have (nothing) and it's really not crappy at all once you take off the fox glasses. The bear is in focus and looking toward the camera; the photo is taken from a low angle and in focus. Fuck you for constantly attacking this photo. It was an example of telephoto nature photography, of which I could have used any number of professional examples but chose to post one of my own because I believe in backing up my opinion with my own chops, something you haven't done once.

File: brown_bear_ru.jpg (48KB, 375x281px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 375x281px

>>2742780

Example from Google. Try replicating it with a 40mm pancake lens. You'd get mauled.

Eat a dick, fox.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:01:11 21:04:24
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	375
Image Height	281

>>2742784
Ehh, I never said you could replicate the photo. Just that you could probably get something more interesting than a mediocre stock image of a bear. I also never said I hate telephoto. My argument is that simply carrying around multiple lenses 'just in case' won't make you a better photographer. It's not good training.

I'll respond to your lengthier comment when I get back from errands. Don't get all mad I don't like your photo though. If something being in focus is the main contributor to it being a good photo than we obviously have very different viewpoints of photography.

>>2742785
>every photo of a bear that you could possibly post is beneath my standards
Then you are missing my entire point, like I already said.

>I'll respond to your lengthier comment when I get back from errands.
Don't bother. You are absolutely insufferable to listen to.

>>2742786
Never said that. I totally believe you or any one can take stellar pictures. And I also think carrying around too much gear holds people back from accomplishing that.

I really got under your skin huh?

>>2742788
I wouldn't have such a high opinion of yourself if I were you. I notice that you have yet to post a single photo of your own.

>>2742789
What difference would it make? What if my photos were 'better' than yours? Would that change your opinion? What if I don't even really shoot photos and am.actually of director of photography in film?

>>2742668

No, but I normally need two or three to do what I want most of the time. I don't know why you used to normally carry around two bodies, though.

>>2742677

Sounds kind of retarded if you have the time to set up.
I normally have a Tokina 24mm-85mm on my body for versatility, but if my subject isn't going away, I'm going to use my best lens for it.

>>2742684

$100 for a MF 135mm seems a little high desu.

Is it because it's Nikon?

>>2742790
It's not about your photos being "better" or "worse" than someone else's. My feelings won't be hurt if you post something that looks better than anything I've ever taken and I won't make fun of you if you post something that's worse than my worst photo. It's about showing us if you actually have any chops whatsoever to back up your opinion at all. Amateurs who don't shoot photos swear up and down that Instagram effects look good. In the reputation-devoid medium of 4chan, it's just a convenient way to sift through the bullshit.
>What if I don't even really shoot photos?
Then you'd be proving me right that you're talking out of your ass this whole time. It's one thing to be a pro or amateur who has extensive experience with photography and who has ultimately, after hundreds of thousands of photos, decided that only one camera body and only one prime lens are all you need in life, and that you'd sold all your other camera equipment because of this wisdom. That kind of opinion would carry a bit of weight here, even if not everyone agreed.

But when you "don't even really shoot photos" and you claim to have attained gear enlightenment and lens oneness, it comes off as undeserved arrogance. You claim to know better than everyone else, when in reality you are a greenhorn. I suspected as much from your first post when you wrote that you'd "been shooting for 10 years," as if that meant something. I've been shooting for 17 years, but I'll be the last one to claim that the length of time I've been around cameras means anything on its own.

>>2742766
>pancake

Not who you were replying to, but I agree with the observation premise. I don't agree with arbitrarily limiting yourself to one lens only because of muh minimalism; if you have the room, why not carry a couple lenses?

How much time do you spend on deciding what lens to use? I spend at least ten times as much time planning a good photograph than I ever do thinking about my lenses when I'm out.
Your idea of following the bear would have taken much longer than changing out a lens, but I would have done it myself.

>>2742804
>Your idea of following the bear would have taken much longer than changing out a lens, but I would have done it myself.
Once again, >>2742783
>It was an example of telephoto nature photography, of which I could have used any number of professional examples
Missing the point.

File: IMG_0934.jpg (3MB, 3456x2304px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x2304px

>>2742805

If the situation didn't allow for, I understand, but he did have a good idea if you wanted a better picture of him, although, I sure wouldn't have been using a pancake for it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Firmware Version	Firmware 1.0.3
Owner Name	unknown
Serial Number	0420209152
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2004:10:21 09:02:27
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/inf
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3456
Image Height	2304
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	Manual
Drive Mode	Continuous
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Fluorescent
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	256
Camera Actuations	-1740439386
Color Matrix	0

>>2742809
>chasing after a bear with a 40mm lens
>"a good idea"
>STILL missing the point
OK, now I'm convinced that you're samefagging, fox.

>>2742809
Also, the fact that you posted a picture, even though it's a pic of a piece of actual trash, which is what I've been asking fox to do for half a dozen posts now, indicates that you are fox and you are samefagging.

File: Sitp.png (53KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1024x768px

>>2742813

Did I say I would use a 40mm?

What point?
I said that if you couldn't take a closer photograph due to the landscape, what you had was nice.

>indicates that you are fox and you are samefagging

Yeah, what ever. I guess I have to wholeheartedly agree with everything you say in order to concur in the notion that a /p/ thread should have photos in it.

>>2742817
>Did I say I would use a 40mm?
>What point?
>>2742809
>but he did have a good idea if you wanted a better picture of him,
>>2742766
>I bet had you watched, thought, and waited you could have walked away with a photo that tells more of a story using that 40mm pancake lens. Maybe until the bear was completely isolated against sun-drenched rocks, maybe he would have sat up at one point. But maybe none of this would have happened. Maybe he would have walked out of site and you would be left with no photo period. But at least you would have probably spent more time appreciating and watching him rather than switching lenses and trying to get 'the shot'.

>>2742818

I already said that I wouldn't use a pancake, I thought it went without saying that I wouldn't necessarily agree with his focal length either.

The back ground that he was in as well as the foliage starting to cover his face didn't help your photo.

>>2742799
I'm back

Well if this helps sift through bullshit here are my photos. Again, my main point is I think alot of people would benefit from simplifying their setups. I would never have believed it myself a few years ago when I swore I had to carry 3 lenses "just in case."
WWW.Flickr.com/photos/mctomch

>>2742804
It's not so much deciding but shooting with one lens and then thinking "shit, wonder that this would look like wide" or whatever. It's the simplicity of not even having the option that I feel keeps me more on my toes while out shooting

>>2742824

What lens do you typically use?

>>2742827
50mm on my A7, 80mm on my SQ-A

>>2742828

How do you like the A7?

You'll get bored of it or have a baby. Then you'll retire and be obsessed again.

It's the circle of life.

>>2742830
It's a great camera. No complaints really. Battery life hasn't been an issue, usually have 2 batteries and I've never run out of juice even on multi-day hikes. I only shoot with my Canon FD primes on it but they work for me. Love the focus peaking. I'm almost as quite at focusing on it as I am on my SQ-A with a split prism. I got the body refurbished for $800 and already had the FD primes. Was tough to beat and I hadn't had a digital camera since 2009 when I sold my D70s and figured it was time.

>>2742833
Meant to say I'm almost as quick*** at focusing on it.

I was waiting for FF to become affordable and the ability to slap any lens on the front of it made it a winner for me.

>>2742833

Why did you sell your D70s?
Did you not like them?

>>2742836
Stopped using it once I no longer needed super fast flash sync. I also hated the stupid little viewfinder.

>>2742798
You think so? I searched reviews for it snd they say it is almost as good as the 135mm f2 DC Nikkor. But yeah that lens has autofocus. Anyhow, I can use it as well on my N90s/F90s film camera as well.

>>2742798
Based on what? That's a great price for a good lens.

>>2742821
>I already said that I wouldn't use a pancake, I thought it went without saying that I wouldn't necessarily agree with his focal length either.
Then what focal length would you have used? 20mm?
>The back ground that he was in as well as the foliage starting to cover his face didn't help your photo.
Funny thing about threads. I can refer back to posts like >>2742784 and >>2742783
>It was an example of telephoto nature photography, of which I could have used any number of professional examples
and say that I addressed this already, and that you are still missing the point.

>>2742828
>on my A7
And there we have it, folks. The kind of person who goes out of his way in a conversation about focal lengths to critique an example photo as somehow proof that telephoto focal length lenses are for "snapshits."

Fucking sonyfags.

>>2742993
When did I ever say or even imply telephoto is for snapshits? My point is taking multiple consistently taking multiple lenses on leisurely outings ( ex. ultra wide + standard + telephoto) is counter productive to developing skill. Want to shoot telephoto? Sweet, slap it on your camera and go. Wanna shoot 40mm only, cool do it and figure out how to make it work in difficult situations. The point is learning how to make less than optimal gear work. Which I'm arguing will develop skill faster and hopefully lead to more creative thought.

These ideas are from my own experience where I would take a wide, standard, and telephoto on every hike I did. I started to realize that the best shots were usually from the first one I took of the scene (with whatever lens I already had on my camera) any subsequent frames shot at other focal lengths weren't as pleasing.

It's the same idea of learning a few emulsions really well. Use them in situations they aren't recommended. You may be surprised. I found out E100VS is absolutely stunning when shot as long exposures at night. I haven't found another e6 film that is even close. Would never have found that out if I had just popped my Portra back on like I and most people would do.

So yeah, if you want to shoot telephoto do it. But don't take it off right away for a scene that at first glance seems to call for something else. Try working it out and you may wind up with something stellar and out of the ordinary.

>>2743383
I agree with this.

This is the reason why filmfags are better than digitalfags. With film, one lens like a 50mm is all I need and make do with its limitations. Coolness factor is also 10x unlike the digitalfags carrying geek looking backpacks. If you are an amateur of hobbyist, film is where its at.

>>2742108
I get what you mean. I also bought my first proper digital camera about 1,5 years ago and since bought and sold a whole bunch of cameras (14 I think) and lenses (at least 30, all but 2 primes). All film stuff though, with pieces rarely worth more than €100.

For me the cure was keeping a spreadsheet with what I was spending on gear and giving myself the goal of breaking even by selling the stuff I don't like that much. Right now it looks like I'll be in the green in just a few weeks and I'll keep 3 of the camera's and 12 lenses (and one of each I broke while repairing because I'm a moron).
Some days I just want to sell everything but my OM-1 and 35-SP and like 3 lenses and keep things simple but I know I'll regret selling my Takumars and Topcors. I'm weak.

I think part of my addiction to getting new gear was also the rush of finding a great deal. There's something incredibly satisfying about correctly identifying a nice lens from a few pixels in a blurry, noisy picture taken with a potato, coming across a nice camera in a vaguely described listing (e.g. "old camera") in the wrong category no one else looked at, or negotiating a price for stuff you know you can sell for at least 3 times as much.

.. Maybe I'm still not completely cured from my GAS. Though I've stopped buying stuff, I'm still hoping to find a cheap Mju-II or XA someday... And I'd have a very hard time resisting getting a nice Topcor 35/2.8 or 58/1.4 when one pops up on the marketplace for a good price... Also something wider than 28mm maybe? ...Fuck.

>>2743399
This has nothing to do with film or digital though...

>>2743404
No, see

>>2743383
>My point is taking multiple consistently taking multiple lenses on leisurely outings ( ex. ultra wide + standard + telephoto) is counter productive to developing skill.
And once again, nobody asked your opinion.

Also, I see you're still samefagging >>2743399
>I agree with this.
M'kay. Sure, pumpkin.

>>2743402
>I get what you mean. I also bought my first proper digital camera about 1,5 years ago and since bought and sold a whole bunch of cameras (14 I think) and lenses (at least 30, all but 2 primes). All film stuff though, with pieces rarely worth more than €100.

Only 2 primes? I, on the other hand, prefer primes. I probably have acquired as much lenses and cameras like you if I haven't stopped myself.

>Some days I just want to sell everything but my OM-1 and 35-SP and like 3 lenses and keep things simple but I know I'll regret selling my Takumars and Topcors. I'm weak.

My OM-1 has a broken battery layer and I won't still let go of it. There's something with that camera in a way that I'm not inclined to sell it. I do want to replace the viewfinder with 1-13 because mine doesn't have a split screen.

>I think part of my addiction to getting new gear was also the rush of finding a great deal. There's something incredibly satisfying about correctly identifying a nice lens from a few pixels in a blurry, noisy picture taken with a potato, coming across a nice camera in a vaguely described listing (e.g. "old camera") in the wrong category no one else looked at, or negotiating a price for stuff you know you can sell for at least 3 times as much.

I can relate. I can't escape a great deal and I enjoy when I get to haggle the price down.

Lately as I said I've been eyeing a Nikon 135mm f3.5 AI manual lens and also an Olympus Pen for dat der cheap film half frames. I have a Pentax ME Super that needs to have it's shutter repaired. I've been thinking of buying a lens for it but yeah it's probably better if I replace it altogether.

On some level I do want my own studio as well but yeah I probably would fill it with GAS items again like strobes etc.

>>2743411
>>2743411
Not samefagging, I followed up to that post about how this isn't even a discussion about film vs digital.

Also the whole point of this thread is about opinions on wanting gear that one doesn't need. I'm explaining the benefits of a minimal kit...even minimal kit means leaving 80% of it at home and sticking to a camera and one lens and learning how to work within those parameters

>>2743383
Most photographers who are "jack of all trades" tend to put out average or even subpar work. The top tier, best of the best, all find a specific area of focus and go at it hard. Since different lenses / focal lengths are generally prefered for different genres, you'll tend to find those putting out the best work don't actually have that much in terms of lens variety. People have made entire livings, and been a part of modern art history by using only 1 lens.

>>>2742748

Shit like this just makes me think they're not very good. Sure, they'll have a lens to handle every scenario they come across. It's unlikely though that they have a real deep focus / concentration / expertise in any given area though. Almost garanteed to be mediocre snapshots. You'd be hard-pressed to find a working professional that concurrently uses 9 lenses for the same system.

>>2743452
>>2743493
More strawman and doubleposting. Nice.

>just because someone owns 9 lenses means that he "concurrently" uses all of them
How would someone even do that? 9 camera bodies? The mental gymnastics you must need to do just to get through your day while you are constantly confronted with a reality that doesn't conform to your expectations of it must be immense. Keep trying, though. I'm sure you'll finally figure things out, eventually, someday.

File: Screenshot_2016-01-13-17-05-24.png (410KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 1440x2560px

>>2743505
9 lenses is definitely excessive and you somewhat echoed what I've been saying. Complex kits, if taken out shooting, involve lots of mental gymnastics that are detrimental to the act of shooting photos.

>>2743505
Was my first comment in this thread :/
>How would someone even do that
By not taking everything so literally. I think any reasonable person would understand that by "concurrently" I simply mean that they are actively and consistently all being used (and not simply resting on a shelf for months on end).
>The mental gymnastics...
Do you have aspergers / autism?

>>2743512
Again. If you're going out to shoot in a non -professional environment taking anymore than 2 lenses poses more of a burden creatively than they provide benefit. Even two lenses can.

Owning multiple lenses isn't a bad thing, but thinking you need to take them all out "just in case" is. Once a person realizes this, their desire to acquire more gear dimenishes because they understand the beauty of a simple setup.

>>2743423
>Only 2 primes?
Sorry, not native English speaker here. I meant 2 zooms, rest primes.

>>2743514
>By not taking everything so literally. I think any reasonable person would understand that by "concurrently" I simply mean that they are actively and consistently all being used
In other words, you don't know what "concurrently" means and you expect us to read your mind as to what you think ot means. And also, you lack imagination. How can you not think of a use for any given lens? If you ever use the zoom ring on a zoom lens, then you can think of a use for more than one prime. You're just being difficult on purpose because you chose to defend an indefensible position. Your opinion is literally incoherent.

>>2743680
>How can you not think of a use for any given dildo? If you ever pump up an inflatable dildo, then you can think of a use for more than one dildo.

People don't need every single marginally different dildo, the buy based on their needs and preferences. Some people have one, some people have a couple.

Just because I can find a use for a given lens doesn't mean it's necessary to own it. Should everyone own a 600mm f4, since they might have the opportunity to use it sometime? No? Any "cost" argument applies just as much towards cheaper lenses too. By your logic, isn't it a good idea to own every lens ever, so long as you can find a use? How many is too many? How little of a use does a lens have to get to be justifiably owned? Where do you draw the line?

If I never shoot macro, I have no reason to own a macro lens. If I never shoot telephoto, I have no reason to own a telephoto lens. Hell, if I hate taking pictures with every focal length other than 50, I have no justifiable reason to own a lens outside that focal length. And anytime that rare circumstance comes up, I can always rent.

My opinion is in-line with pretty much every working professional photographer. The ones putting out the best work tend to stick to specific areas / genres of photography. And within those given genres, there's absolutely no need to have 9 lenses on one system (9 total is pretty reasonable when it's across different formats / camera systems).

People with lineups like the ones posted earlier are just "collectors" putting out mediocre work.

>>2743751
>My opinion is in-line with pretty much every working professional photographer.
The fact that you feel the need not just to push your opinions onto other people, but to justify that with an appeal to popularity tells me that you are just a bumbling art school student whose opinions are mostly just echoes of what his professors have hammered into his head. Enjoy being a follower in life and never a leader.

File: crying babby SAM.jpg (31KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 300x300px

>>2743493
>ZOMG HE HAS MANY LENSES
>HE CAN'T BE A GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER IF HE HAS NINE LENSES, HE GETS TOO CONFUSED BECAUSE HE IS FORCED TO TAKE THEM ALL WITH HIM ALL THE TIME ALWAYS
>ONLY EXPLANATION OF SOMEONE OWNING NINE LENSES IS THAT HE IS A COLLECTOR AND PUTS OUT MEDIOCRE PHOTOS, I REFUSE TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE
>"STOP USING LENSES THAT I DON'T LIKE" -You.

I can think of a use for each of the lenses in the aforementioned post, since that was my fucking post you quoted, asshole.

>14mm prime
Good for close-ups in landscape and people photography - no overlap with any other lens listed due to close focusing ability.

>21mm prime
Compact "walk-around" lens to keep on the camera, good for street photography because of its compact size and easy zone focusing, also good for event photography or landscape photography. Some overlap with the 31, but much smaller, so I use it more.

>31mm prime
Normal lens, good for portraits, street or most anything else. Some overlap with the 21 and the 35, but does low light and shallow depth of field better at the expense of bulk/weight.

>35mm prime
Normal lens, good for most anything, including being OK at macro. Overlaps with the 31, but does macro better.

>50mm prime
Portrait lens, not too long and with a good, shallow depth of field.

>70mm prime
There is some overlap here, but I can find a lot of uses for this focal length and I appreciate having a compact, pancake-size lens in this fl.

>100mm prime
Macro lens.

>16-85mm zoom
All purpose standard zoom for a wide variety of situations. Overlaps with many of the primes listed above at the expense of bulk, weight, lens speed and image quality.

>18-55mm zoom
Admittedly superfluous, but is the most compact weather-resistant Pentax lens I have, so I can't get rid of it.

>55-300mm zoom
Telephoto range for photographing distant objects, such as birds.

Wow, that was hard. There's no way I could ever use ALL of those fucking lenses in a normal human lifetime, though, amirite!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Paint.NET v3.5.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>2743775
but will you sell me any on the low is the question

>>2743775
>>14mm prime
>Good for close-ups in landscape and people photography - no overlap with any other lens listed due to close focusing ability.
I don't even know what that means. Superwides are for landscapes, and you have this covered with the 16-85.

>>21mm prime
>Compact "walk-around" lens to keep on the camera, good for street photography because of its compact size and easy zone focusing, also good for event photography or landscape photography. Some overlap with the 31, but much smaller, so I use it more.
>>31mm prime
>Normal lens, good for portraits, street or most anything else. Some overlap with the 21 and the 35, but does low light and shallow depth of field better at the expense of bulk/weight.
>>35mm prime
>Normal lens, good for most anything, including being OK at macro. Overlaps with the 31, but does macro better.
All these do the same boring "standard prime" thing. Pick only one.

>>50mm prime
>Portrait lens, not too long and with a good, shallow depth of field.
>>70mm prime
>There is some overlap here, but I can find a lot of uses for this focal length and I appreciate having a compact, pancake-size lens in this fl.
Absolutely no reason to own both.

>>100mm prime
>Macro lens.
Lol, I'm guessing that you are one of those people who takes pictures of his food at restaurants.

>>16-85mm zoom
>All purpose standard zoom for a wide variety of situations. Overlaps with many of the primes listed above at the expense of bulk, weight, lens speed and image quality.
>>18-55mm zoom
>Admittedly superfluous, but is the most compact weather-resistant Pentax lens I have, so I can't get rid of it.
Pick one and only one, nigger.

>>55-300mm zoom
>Telephoto range for photographing distant objects, such as birds.
Snapshits of wildlife are boring. No one wants to see your snapshits of the squirrels in your front yard.

>>2743793
All I'm going to say to all that is that it's nice to have options. I would actually be fine spending the rest of my life with a single normal prime, but sometimes I like to shoot from a different perspective, or with something more compact, so it's nice to be able to, when the mood strikes. When you don't just look at photography as a means to convey high brow art, you might understand that sometime.

>>2743775
but seriously ill give you 100 bucks for that 16-85

>>2743779
>>2743822
No...

35mm + 50mm are all I need. Prefer the 35mm right now and usually stick to 1 camera 1 lens. I cannot shoot more than that on a single subject anyway. Usually only 1 shot per subject also, so it's either hit or miss. Recently took two shots of the same subject, but only cause I noticed a raindrop on my lens.

>>2743775
as long as you don't take all of these along every time you go out shooting it's ok. If you do you either do not plan your shootings well or shoot a variety of subjects.

>>2742347
>>2742347
Well, you seem to think that every photo must always, without exception, be technically perfect. Absolutely sharp, absolutely no blur at all, no fringing etc. This does not a good photo make.

Robert Capas pictures from Normandie, fucked up in development and blurry/shaky as hell since well.. They were taking at D day, with bullets and guns, nazis and tanks. Shit pictures because he didn't have a medium format digital camera from the future with a f/0.3 lens, mounted on a cast iron tripod? Seriously?

Great photos have been taken since the first camera was made.

Did some guy base his multiple lens argument off of shooting photos of a bear? God I fucking hate this board.

>>2744315
I honestly don't get you people. Instead of addressing the argument with your own counter-argument, you just do drive-by shitposts where you either vent about your feelings, make ad hominems, or make reference to your incredulity and that's it. I had a good argument, IMO, and it's insulting when people attack me on a technicality without ever addressing my argument directly.

>Person A: You don't need to own more than one lens ever and if you do, you are obviously compensating for a lack of skills. All pros own and use just one lens ever.
>Person B: I like to do more than one style of photography. For example, if I'm doing wildlife photography, my normal prime is inadequate. Therefore, at least two lenses, normal prime and telephoto zoom, are required for me. Illustration for this can be seen in this picture I took of a bear that would have been impossible or dangerous with a shorter prime.
>Person A: Your snapshit of a bear sucks and you are a dingus. I was right. You are just a hack. A real pro would have waited for the right moment and snagged an emotion-invoking photo of that bear with the 40mm lens.
>Person C: What a fag. He's actually using the "bear argument."
>Person D: I may not actually shoot photos, but I can tell you that there is no way you could have changed lenses in time to get that picture. It is a fake bear.
>Person E: Person A is right. You could have gotten a better picture with the 40mm. As it stands your bear pic is just that, a qwikpic to show your family that you dun saw burr.

You can't make this shit up...

>>2744494
If you have a 35mm lens, and a 50mm lens, buying a 40mm lens is ridiculous. People who actually take photos all know this. Even having a 35 and a 50 is usually pretty useless, as you tend to pick one and stick with it based on your shooting style.

If you have more than three primes, you should have bought a zoom.

There is not a single photo you can take with a 40mm lens that you couldn't have taken by "only" having a 35mm and a 50mm.

Buying lenses is not the problem, but what usually, almost always, goes along with people buying tons of lenses, is those same people never actually taking any photos, because they're not photographers. They're gear acquirers, who pretend to be photographers, and tell themselves "Man, I'd go take better photos if I had a 37.6mm lens for SURE, let me spend a month looking up test charts to be sure I get the right one for me..."

If you can post photos that you took with every lens, or common situations in which you use all of them, then that's fine, and we'll accept it, but we all know that it isn't the case.

All you'd have to do to get everyone off your back is to say "I'm just a collector who wants to have as many lenses as I can, because I really like the ecosystem. I know there aren't uses for all of them, but it makes me happy personally to have them."

But when you come and ask more traditional (aka. "sane") people for advice about which lenses you need to add to your dusty pile of lenses, you're going to get "none, go take photos". It's pretty stupid to say that other people are being closed minded, while also outright rejecting their differing viewpoints.

>>2744494
>You don't need to own more than one lens ever and if you do...All pros own and use just one lens ever.
Not what anyone's said at all. Past a certain threshold, owning a certain number of lenses is indeed excessive by any normal person's standards. Most pros only stick to a handful of lenses, very few own +9 for one system. This isn't even a photography thing, you can swap out lenses for some item in literally any other hobby.

>I like to do more than one style of photography
Which is totally reasonable. Most people that don't specialize, tend to put out mediocre work. There's no limit to the amount of lenses you can justify owning by "doing more than one style of photography", I could own 100 lenses and justify owning each one on that basis. Most people (in this thread) see +9 on one system as excessive.

Again, I'll ask
> By your logic, isn't it a good idea to own every lens ever, so long as you can find a use? How many is too many? How little of a use does a lens have to get to be justifiably owned? Where do you draw the line?
What's the magic number at which owning a certain number of lenses is "too much", or is there not one at all for you? Are you disagreeing on principal (can never own too many lenses) or on what's been definied as "too many" (in this case 9)?

>>2744532
I have 24, 28, 30, 35, 38, 40, 50, 55, 58.
I take a lot of photos.

>>2744543
>I take a lot of photos.
No you don't.

>>2744543
>I buy a lot of lenses
FTFY

>>2744543
>I have 24, 28, 30, 35, 38, 40, 50, 55, 58.

All for the same system?

Why not just have a really good 24, 35 and 50 (maybe the 28)?

>>2744543
How often does each lens get used?

>>2744532
>Person F: Strawmanning about a specific type of person and a specific, narrowly defined set of lenses.

To all the observers/lurkers looking at this thread with incredulity, remember that my original argument was that small subjects some 150 feet away are not practical with a normal prime and thus call for the use of a telephoto lens. Anywhere else, this would be common sense. On /p/, somehow it's controversial.

>But when you come and ask more traditional (aka. "sane") people for advice about which lenses you need to add to your dusty pile of lenses,
Literally what. So two lenses is a "dusty pile of lenses"? Now you have completely divorced yourself from reality. Come back to Earth!

>>2744551
>>2744550
>>2744548
>>2744546
Oh wow, I didn't know that would be such a popular post.
And no, not for the same system, they're F, K, FD, EF, M42, various compacts, etc.
Of course I don't use them all all the time.
I almost never take more than 2 lenses out shooting.
I love it how people think that you should get "one really good lense" for each length.
All lenses are good, for all sorts of things.
I have taken, developed and scanned about 300 photos since Christmas day? And that isn't including rolls still in cameras?
Why is it such a hard thing for you to believe that a person that loves cameras and lenses can also love taking photos?

>>2742108
>I probably have spent around $1000+ on all my gear on 1 year alone. Now I'm on the hunt again for another lens because it's kind of cheap.

What you just described is not necessarily unhealthy or uncommon, and it's not something to worry about. You want to experience with the capabilities of a "modular" camera that allows for a variety of lenses, flash units and other accessories. That's kind of the whole reason you'd get an interchangeable lens camera and not a simple point-and-shoot.

$1000 is not a lot of money. Most good lenses, with the exception of nifty-fifties, start at around $600. The Sigma Art lenses are usually around $700-$900, and a decent zoom lens will be about $800 and up.

Starting with a lot of cheap gear isn't bad because it lets you figure out what you like before buying more stuff. The thing I would advise against is constantly buying really cheap stuff that's of poor quality. Be ready to put down some cash for a decent lens if you plan on doing this seriously, be it for a hobby or pay. Whether we want to admit it or not, camera gear matters, to the extent that you want a camera system (bodies, lenses, etc.) that satisfies you. There's a certain threshold you have to cross and dollar amount you have to pay to get the quality and features you want in order to feel satisfied, and this is different for everybody. If you just keep buying crappy superzoom lenses or shitty tripods you'll quickly get frustrated and be wanting more; if you save up and get a lens or something that you really love, you'll feel less of a need to upgrade or add more things.

>>2744679
>Starting with a lot of cheap gear isn't bad because it lets you figure out what you like before buying more stuff. The thing I would advise against is constantly buying really cheap stuff that's of poor quality. Be ready to put down some cash for a decent lens if you plan on doing this seriously, be it for a hobby or pay. Whether we want to admit it or not, camera gear matters, to the extent that you want a camera system (bodies, lenses, etc.) that satisfies you. There's a certain threshold you have to cross and dollar amount you have to pay to get the quality and features you want in order to feel satisfied, and this is different for everybody. If you just keep buying crappy superzoom lenses or shitty tripods you'll quickly get frustrated and be wanting more; if you save up and get a lens or something that you really love, you'll feel less of a need to upgrade or add more things.

OP here. Good point. Well I never wanted a superzoom nor zoom lenses in general. The reason I bought the 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 is because it is pretty sharp and can take a beating especially in situations when I only have to bring one lens. I usually prefer buying primes especially the durable metal ones that were made 20+ years ago.

Thanks for understanding my situation. It's just that I haven't spend that much on a hobby. $1000 is still a substantial amount of money and I can use it in other things like saving it for future car repairs and so on.

>>2744679
>Starting with a lot of cheap gear isn't bad because it lets you figure out what you like before buying more stuff. The thing I would advise against is constantly buying really cheap stuff that's of poor quality. Be ready to put down some cash for a decent lens if you plan on doing this seriously, be it for a hobby or pay.

I've been buying a lot of cheap manual primes recently but they are of good quality. What are these cheap lenses you are talking about then?