Lens, and your needs vs gear whoring

While at a local photo club shoot, the subject of lens acquisition came up as a subject. It seems like everybody wants the 2.8 zooms, and was complaining of price hikes from Canon. I've had people comment about my choice to use f4 zooms, why don't I get the 2.8's, you never know when you will need it.

I find myself not really needing the 2.8 zoomss, I have the 17-40/f4, 24-105/f4 IS, and 70-200/f4 IS. I don't shoot in low light as a norm and have been able to do all the stuff I need with above lens. I have not found myself needed the extra stop in shooting. For the bit of low light I have the 50/1.4 and 100/2. I feel I have met my needs with out spending a ton of money on my hobby.

I always thought how many people are just purchasing glass that they really don't need, just be feel like they are a "pro" or are gear whoring.

Maybe I'm just crazy...

When you attribute motives to others and use terms like gear whore you invite a pretty hard response. Different people take different approaches. You look for value, and pick your spots. I have a similar approach, I have F4 zooms and primes for the low light stuff/shallow DOF stuff. But I can see where they prioritize getting the fastest best zoom they can for their buck. So choose your path and consider yourself wise but lay off on the name calling.

I was not meaning to come across as hard, trying to start a discussion.

The discussion at the meeting did get a bid heated at times, over all it was an interesting discussion, and did not degrade into a fight.

Markk9 wrote in post #15890625
I was not meaning to across as a hard, trying to start a discussion.

The discussion at the meeting did get a bid heated at times, over all it was an interesting discussion, and did not degrade into a fight.

Yeah but you used it here. It implies anyone with a different opinion than yours is a lens whore.

For those of use who aren't making money from it, we don't "need" any of it. Only "L" I have is the 70-200 2.8, and ended up going with it for two reasons. Speed for shooting sports and ability to AF with a 2x tele-converter. Removed my need to get a 100-400. The combo may not be as sharp, but it "works for me". My other 2.8's were based on image quality and low light performance. I'd gear whore more if cash allowed it. It all comes down to disposable income and wants when it's a hobby. Has nothing to do with needs!

Markk9 wrote in post #15890572
I always thought how many people are just purchasing glass that they really don't need, just be feel like they are a "pro" or are gear whoring.

Maybe I'm just crazy...

To be honest, I probably started purchasing nicer glass without really knowing what I "needed" it for, but now that I have a couple of more expensive lenses (35L, 135L) and have been using them for several years, I've found that I really like the style of shooting I have developed with them. I shoot below 2.8 quite often, definitely a majority of the time, and the crispness of these primes at lower apertures is not lost on me at all, not to mention the great color and contrast!

For reference, my purchasing history looks like this:

Rebel XT + kit
50 1.4
85 1.8
used 5Dc
135L
24L
sold 85 1.8
traded 24L for 35L

Now I shoot with 35L 65% of the time, 135L 25% of the time, and 50 1.4 10% of the time, and I'm quite happy!

I guess at least based on my own experience, I don't think "growing into" your lenses is a crime, as long as you make the effort to learn with them once you get them (and, obviously, only keep them if you actually use them, haha).

I used to be a self-conscient lens whore and I regret it a lot.
Thing is: when I started I gave the internet too much credit. Specially to the Lens Samples forum in here.
You see all those amazing pictures taken with fast primes and think "Man! I need that piece of glass so I can take shots like these!" and you totally underestimate the need for talent and practice (see my funny signature).

Then you get the glass and still don´t take as good shots. And then you realize you should be studying more and buying less.
Now I have a closet packed with L glass most of which I never use. My 70-200 2.8 IS left the closet once in a year and the 400L will make an anniversary in there.
What can I do? I still love them and won´t sell them. Don´t need the money right now.

On the plus side, at least, I know I have glass for almost any situation I might incour. From weddings to wildlife, bring it on.

But I do see many others like me here: buy lots of expensive stuff thinking it will bring better pictures, when it actually only brings different photo opportunities.
If I could go back?
5D3 + 24-105 + 85L and would call it a day.

Markk9 wrote in post #15890572
While at a local photo club shoot, the subject of lens acquisition came up as a subject. It seems like everybody wants the 2.8 zooms, and was complaining of price hikes from Canon. I've had people comment about my choice to use f4 zooms, why don't I get the 2.8's, you never know when you will need it.

Has anyone here commented about your choice? Maybe people in your photo club recommended their lens because they want you to have this great experience that they have, or maybe they got critical because they're insensitive people or because you rejected their idea, or maybe they even ganged up on you. I don't know, I wasn't there. But there's no point bringing the argument to an online forum unless some of those people you met with are here as well--and if they're here, it'd be better not to.

I am a whore!

I want to be a gear whore. Can't afford it. =/

Life would be awfully boring if we could only have what we "need."

You don't "need" fast zooms to do what you want to do. Bully for you.

Canon puts its best efforts into its highest priced glass. This only makes sense; would you pour millions into improving a product you sell for $250, or $2500? It logically follows that, with few exceptions, you'll find the latest technology and best image quality in the fastest L zooms. The new 24-70 and 70-200 come to mind.

Why rob yourself of the best possible quality product because you don't "need" one of the features it offers?

My 70_200F4L is my slowest lens. Wish I have it 2.8, but no money and it is less used lens.
My normal zoom is 2.8 and my normal prime is 1.2.
Just because I need it to be fast. Indoors, low light, no or minimum flash.

Markk9 wrote in post #15890572
It seems like everybody wants the 2.8 zooms . . . I've had people comment about my choice to use f4 zooms, why don't I get the 2.8's, you never know when you will need it.

I always thought how many people are just purchasing glass that they really don't need, just be feel like they are a "pro" or are gear whoring.

I had the 70-200 f4, and sold it. Know why? Because it just didn't meet my needs for all of the low light work I do. I couldn't get the shots I wanted at f4. Tried to, even upped the ISO . . . hated the results. A fully leafed out forest canopy at twilight can be a very tough environment to shoot under.

I am not a "gear whore", by any stretch of the imagination. I use every lens I have a lot, and I frequently have a need to use each lens' widest aperture.

If I haven't used something for a month or two and feel that its not going to get used often enough, I sell it.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15891273
I had the 70-200 f4, and sold it. Know why? Because it just didn't meet my needs for all of the low light work I do. I couldn't get the shots I wanted at f4. Tried to, even upped the ISO . . . hated the results. A fully leafed out forest canopy at twilight can be a very tough environment to shoot under.

I am not a "gear whore", by any stretch of the imagination. I use every lens I have a lot, and I frequently have a need to use each lens' widest aperture.

If you need it for your type of work, then I don't think of it as gear whoring.

The guy that is shooting low light, at indoor sports and events, sure they need a big piece of glass. When my kids get to high school age and play indoor sports, I will most likely get the 70-200/2.8.