Why keep a lens you don't use

I don't have a lot of money to spend on glass that sits home.

After considering what lenses suit my style of shooting, why do so many have primes that fall into the range of Canon's best zooms are people raving about.

I understand picking up two stops of light in some situations is great but changing lenses or foot zooming is too much bother for me. Depth of field is OK at f/2.8.

I don't do studio work but often carry 24-200 f/2.8 & my 500. What more do you need?

One reason is the 85L is such an awesome lens and produces images like no other zoom can - and I have the 70-200 2.8L IS Mk II as well. It's good, but the 85L is better. Same with the 135L. There is just a quality about the shots that is better. I use the 70-200 more, but there are certain situations the others are invaluable.

Tapeman wrote in post #17205933
I don't have a lot of money to spend on glass that sits home.

After considering what lenses suit my style of shooting, why do so many have primes that fall into the range of Canon's best zooms are people raving about.

I understand picking up two stops of light in some situations is great but changing lenses or foot zooming is too much bother for me. Depth of field is OK at f/2.8.

I don't do studio work but often carry 24-200 f/2.8 & my 500. What more do you need?

Zooms fail in one area. 1.4-2.5 capability. I agree that for the average joe a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.4 OR 85 1.2 would be all they need.

However...

I always recommend a short and long prime. 35/85 would be key.... 50/135 could be another. 24/85 yada yada. If you own more then this then you are gluttonous with gear.

I shoot in many situations where flash is not allowed. Thats why I own 1.4 glass. 2.8 to 1.4 is two stops and the difference from an unusable 25,600 to a usable 6400.

Tapeman wrote in post #17205933
I don't have a lot of money to spend on glass that sits home.

After considering what lenses suit my style of shooting, why do so many have primes that fall into the range of Canon's best zooms are people raving about.

I understand picking up two stops of light in some situations is great but changing lenses or foot zooming is too much bother for me. Depth of field is OK at f/2.8.

I don't do studio work but often carry 24-200 f/2.8 & my 500. What more do you need?

So, twice in your post you take your needs and use them to question other people's choices?

Use the lenses that work for what you do. Don't worry about what other people are doing.

Use the lenses that work for what you do. Don't worry about what other people are doing.
_______________best advice i'v herd in along time.

I am on crop so I am hindered by DOF performance compared to FF so I have a lot of primes and I use them all. I could probably get by with a 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/2.8 II, 50/1.4 and 100L on a 5D3 but that would be a significant investment upgrade for me even with selling everything I have other than the 50/1.4.

Talley wrote in post #17205963
Zooms fail in one area. 1.4-2.5 capability. I agree that for the average joe a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.4 OR 85 1.2 would be all they need.
However...

I always recommend a short and long prime. 35/85 would be key.... 50/135 could be another. 24/85 yada yada. If you own more then this then you are gluttonous with gear.

I shoot in many situations where flash is not allowed. Thats why I own 1.4 glass. 2.8 to 1.4 is two stops and the difference from an unusable 25,600 to a usable 6400.

hahaha. average joe! that's funny!

Tapeman wrote in post #17205933
I don't have a lot of money to spend on glass that sits home.

After considering what lenses suit my style of shooting, why do so many have primes that fall into the range of Canon's best zooms are people raving about.

I understand picking up two stops of light in some situations is great but changing lenses or foot zooming is too much bother for me. Depth of field is OK at f/2.8.

I don't do studio work but often carry 24-200 f/2.8 & my 500. What more do you need?

you see that a lot on internet forums but not as much in the real world. the guys who are out there at dawn shoulder to shoulder with a bunch of other guys are using zooms and beat up tripods mostly, and the ones I know are stellar photographers.

only on internet forums is bokey the subject of a photo. well, you see it on instagram too, to be fair.

None of my lenses gets used a lot. I don't have time to shoot a lot. But, when I need a lens, I just buy it. Some I only thought I needed, and end up selling. Right now I have:

efs 60mm f/2.8 macro
efs 15-85
EF 28 1.8
EF 35 IS
EF 50 1.4
EF 100 f/2
EF 17-40L
Tamron 28-75
EF 28-135
EF 100-400L
Sigma 70-200 OS

I could sell, and not miss, the Tamron and 28-135. The rest of them don't get used much, but they work for what I do, so I keep them.

I have a 100-400 that I use maybe once a year. By your criteria, that lens has no place in my kit bag as it isn't being used. By my criteria, I want a lens that meets my requirements for a particular situation, irrespective of how infrequently that situation might arise.

I have the lenses in my sig for 3 reasons:
1 They give me the ability to work in low natural light, and / or have a thin DOF creatively.
2 They can alway be stopped down to f2.8, f4.0 or f8.0 when needed. A zoom can't go wider than f2.8
3 Each prime I have has a strength that complements the others inabilities.
(wide, standard, long / macro) Depending on my subject and image I choose the best lens.

As other have stated. My whole kit could be replaced by the now 24-105 stm,
but I would lose my low light, thin DOF, and macro abilities using that one zoom.

When I go out shooting, I take all three of my lenses. I have my 50L mounted, unless I am certain of what I want.
This gives me a minimalist lens setup with the widest range of shooting conditions.
I am not concerned with having every FL covered, and more interested in getting a shot, and cropping if desired.

Because your style of shooting isn't my style of shooting

and I use all of them

Different people are different.

Some people prefer using primes over using zooms, sure they could use a zoom and modern day zooms are very very good; but they prefer working with a prime lens.

Heck they might even go out with two camera bodies with a lens on each so that swapping between them isn't too time consuming (heck people with zooms do that too if they want to).


Financially everyone is different too - some have more disposable income and so can afford to have a more specialist setup that has lenses they might use less often, but which exactly fit what they need in a more specific situation. Others will have far less disposable income and so might well have a more generalist setup (depending on how many interests they have) that has fewer individual items (this might well include zoom lenses).

Some people also don't want much depth of field - they really do want the razor thin and thus primes present the ideal option for them as they oft have wider max apertures than zoom lenses.

Then you've got other features - the shape of the aperture blades - the contrast, sharpness, distortion. Some might be minor differences, but they can be of great importance to some. There's also AF performance and IS performance as well as overall weight.

"Why keep a lens you don't need?"

I don't !

If the lens is not earning its keep then it is gone. You cannot keep gear "just because."

panicatnabisco wrote in post #17206113
Because your style of shooting isn't my style of shooting

and I use all of them

Basically this... I'm sorry, but what a pointless thread...

I use most of my lenses at f/2 or wider a large part of the time, the difference between f/2 or f/1.4 and f/2.8 can be drastic for certain subjects, well worth the "inconvenience" of having to change lenses. Then again, I also shoot pretty much entirely with MF lenses, so I guess I simply don't get the "convenience" requirement to begin with

I get that my style is far different from most, and that's fine... there's no wrong way to do it as long as you're getting the shots that you want and that you're happy with, who cares how others get their shots?

As for the thread title; I don't, I sell any lenses I know I won't use. However, I now have a good collection of MF lenses and I use all of them, not often at all, but they get used... sometimes it's fun to change it up a bit by using a lens you haven't shot with in a while