Kier I blamed you!

Ingenious said:
Yes it's a never ending slippery slope, but very satisfying. You start off with the simple things like a good tripod and a remote release. Then you think "If only I had that particular lens..." and a few years later you have a kit bag that David Bailey would be proud of :)
Click to expand...
Yet David would still weep seeing Kier's stuff.

My question is, since I paid for some of those via vB and XF licenses, do I get fractional ownership? ;)
 
DroidHost said:
Kair ... are you a photographer or programmer ? ;) hhh
Click to expand...
Looks like he's a collector more than anything else!

There is no need for more than 3 lenses really.

Ultra Wide
Wide -> Small Telephoto
Long Zoom.

Oh, and a Macro if you don't combine it with another lens ;)

My first time around I had a Canon 40D with 10-22 ultra wide lens
24-105 L series
60mm Macro
& I would have had a 100-400 L series zoom plus another L series zoom, but I got massively scammed on eBay by a greek ****er. I hope he's bankrupt now.

After all that I lost interest & sold up.

About 12 months ago, I got fed up of fooling myself that a compact was enough and bought a 50D with a kit lens & a 55-250mm zoom, which considering the price (its pretty cheap) is a very good lens.

I want to get my 10-22mm lens back, but they are so expensive :(
 
ToDie4 this is for you. Sorry, I couldn't resist :) Looking forward to seeing some photos Marc

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
User said:
My question is, since I paid for some of those via vB and XF licenses, do I get fractional ownership? ;)
Click to expand...
lol, glad I wasn't the only one thinking "so that's where part of my vB license money went" - lol

Just to be clear, I've got nothing against it at all ;) - Just wish it had all gone to Kier :)
 
Forsaken said:
Every professional I know would disagree, as they have a use for every lens in their kit.
Click to expand...
To be fair, that was a bit tongue in cheek. Usually though the minimum for a setup would be 3 lenses, the rest are just specific uses - i.e. Primes etc..

Noone would cart around their entire collection with them! 3 Lenses tends to cover most things if you're out and about.
 
Forsaken said:
Every professional I know would disagree, as they have a use for every lens in their kit.
Click to expand...
Yes, precisely. I have no lenses that don't serve a very specific and unique purpose.

For example, I have a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom, and I also have 28mm, 50mm and 85mm prime lenses. Why do I have those primes, when the zoom covers (almost) every focal length they offer? Because the primes are one or two stops faster, lighter, sharper... With the primes I can shoot at a reasonable shutter speed in dim indoor conditions without a flash, and the huge aperture they offer makes them stunning portrait lenses, capable of throwing the background into a beautiful blur behind the subject.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that while a photographer can get by with just three lenses (or just a single lens, actually), it's simply not correct to say that there is no need for others in order to shoot particular subjects under particular conditions.
 
Dark Matter said:
Which equals "zero". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Right, because you know exactly who I know and don't know :rolleyes:.

MGSteve said:
To be fair, that was a bit tongue in cheek. Usually though the minimum for a setup would be 3 lenses, the rest are just specific uses - i.e. Primes etc..

Noone would cart around their entire collection with them! 3 Lenses tends to cover most things if you're out and about.
Click to expand...

A cousin of my does photos for National Geographic, and she uses a lot of her lenses when she is working. While most dont, there are many that will make use of a large portion of the collection, as that is why they own so many lenses.

Kier said:
Yes, precisely. I have no lenses that don't serve a very specific and unique purpose.

For example, I have a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom, and I also have 28mm, 50mm and 85mm prime lenses. Why do I have those primes, when the zoom covers (almost) every focal length they offer? Because the primes are one or two stops faster, lighter, sharper... With the primes I can shoot at a reasonable shutter speed in dim indoor conditions without a flash, and the huge aperture they offer makes them stunning portrait lenses, capable of throwing the background into a beautiful blur behind the subject.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that while a photographer can get by with just three lenses (or just a single lens, actually), it's simply not correct to say that there is no need for others in order to shoot particular subjects under particular conditions.
Click to expand...

Bet you people will still argue that its just a collection and doesn't serve a proper purpose for each lens :rolleyes:.
 
jasetaro said:
Dang, that's longer my AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II... Not sure I'd want to try shooting portraits with a 400 though. :)
Click to expand...
The 400 ƒ2.8 makes a stunning portrait lens when used from the back of the church during a wedding ceremony :)
 

Similar threads

Vercingetorix
Activity Summary emails are the digital equivalent of junk mail.
Replies
3
Views
1K
Vercingetorix
Vercingetorix
Kleazy
The comeback of Forums - What I am doing about it.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Kleazy
Kleazy
Earl
XF 2.2 Important places to note when you need to understand template extensions, and how they get used practically.
Replies
2
Views
1K
Kier
Kier
Nulumia
Add-on Some new XF2 addons I'm developing, ideas & feedback welcome!
Replies
14
Views
3K
KensonPlays
KensonPlays
Alternadiv
Fixed Spacing in post lost when editing post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Mr. Jinx
Mr. Jinx
Top Bottom