How does a hobby photographer justify a $6000 lens?

My view:

1) Can you afford the cost without putting any dependants upon your income at a disadvantage.

2) Can you afford to spend a like-amount of money upon any significant others in your life

3) Can you afford to spend the time using the item whilst also providing for options 1 and 2.


In the end if you can afford it and if you're not being the selfish one in the relationship then by heck go for it. The reward is not financial, indeed many things in life do not "make their money back" nor reward you with cash; they reward you in other things. In enjoyment, in what you create, in sparking interest, in getting you through that slog of the day, in generating enjoyment for you and those around you etc...

And yes we all need some moral support when throwing down big money on stuff (esp if we are the lone photographer in the family who don't get why an iphone isn't good enough

sspellman wrote in post #17409954
You can rent the lens as needed anytime for $190 for 3 days from LensRentals.com. Anything else for a hobby photographer is pure waste.

I was going to reply back to you saying that there is a caveat to that. With home improvement projects there have been a few times where I've bought something used only to use it for a month or two and then resell it, just to avoid losing money on rental fees.

I was going to counter by saying I could do the same thing with a lens... but we all know I wouldn't sell it when I was done using it for the week

Good point. There have been a few trips to wildlife preserves that I've been putting off because I don't have a lens to take with me... maybe renting for a weekend is the answer.

Naturalist wrote in post #17409382
YOU DON'T!

Oh, I imagine a lot of it depends on how much disposable income you really have. If you're a young buck with a new bride and kids you may not be able to afford it but, if you're an old fart and the kids are gone - what the hell! Right?

I think of it as where the money is coming from. If it means not contributing to an employer-matched retirement savings, that would be a very damaging purchase; even if you sell the lens some day for $5000, you will never get back the match that you lost. Going from there, the choice gets safer and safer, such as if you are already contributing the max for retirement, and have money sitting around collecting 0.01% interest in a bank.

Another option for the OP is to learn to manually focus, or use a tripod or high shutter speeds, and buy an older, used lens with less features, but has that big aperture and nice bokeh that you pay big money for in a current lens.

I find it kind of funny, however, that the idea of spending $6000 on a lens gives buyers cold feet (myself included) and makes their friends and family question their sanity, while people freely buy $40 cars without questions from either themselves or friends and family, when a $15K car will get them where they're going! For just $22K you could get a basic Subaru Legacy, if safety is your main concern, and have $18K leftover for lenses, lenses which will maintain close to their purchase price value much longer than a car.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17409706
I second the idea of taking a close look at the new 100-400ii. It's an amazing lens. Just the other day, one of the people here talked about selling his 300 f/2.8 and picking up the 100-400ii.

I love mine.

The better high-ISO performance of recent cameras makes smaller apertures more practical than they used to be, noise-wise. The ISO levels at which the larger apertures give significantly less visible noise have risen.

Lobstrosity wrote in post #17409960
My only hesitation there is that I'm not happy with the image quality of my 70-200 f/4 and I'm considering selling it and upgrading to the f/2.8.

What specifically did you not like about the 70-200/4L IS? The only thing I can fault it for is the bokeh, which, of course, is not prime-like. It has a circular blur at the outer parts of the frame a lot like what you see in an inexpensive binocular. It performs very well in the focal plane, IMO.

Here's my take... Do what makes you happy as long as it doesn't adversely effect your relationship or your debt. Go for it!

Then there's the Devils advocate.... Can you rent it when you REALLY need it and spend the money on a better camera and a few lenses that you'd get more use from?

All of my justifications come about because I earn my living with photography.

When I was a hobbiest, though, I never really felt the need to "justify" a purchase. It's really no different than someone who restores a classic car or collects stamps or builds models. I was in a hobby store the other day and they had a plastic model of the USS Enterprise. The model was $129.00. There was another model there of the Enterprise, a tad smaller, that was $13.99.

Why buy the one that's so expensive? Well, if I enjoyed building plastic models, and that was my main hobby, maybe I'd be able to see the value in getting it.

Same thing with your lens.

So, go get it. Enjoy it. Take ridiculously good images of dogs. Enjoy it. Enjoy it because it's your hobby, and don't be concerned with "justifying" anything...

Lobstrosity wrote in post #17409373
So, as I look back over my portfolio for the last three years, the last real "fun" I had with my camera was right before I started grad school. I'll finally be graduating in May and I'm looking forward to eventually having more of a life but also some money to spend on gear. I love outdoor shooting -- dogs and birds are my absolute favorite subjects -- and I can't stop thinking about a 300 f/2.8. My wife and I don't really have any other hobbies that we spend our money on, so on some level I justify wanting some better camera gear that way. I'd rather spend my money on photog equipment than take a vacation or buy a dirt bike.

So beyond simply saying that I'm going to shell out this kind of money with no hope of any return (portraits of our daughters? :lol what are my other options, not being a professional photographer? I've been paid a few times for shooting some 1:1 agility sessions with a few border collies, but I'm wondering what other sorts of casual weekend work I might be able to do to help justify having a monster like this. Stock photography might bring in $10-$20 per month, but I can't imagine getting much more than that from it.

Here around... let me know what you think:
1. Offer to shoot people doing their sports or events - golf, archery, marathon/triathlon (we have Ironman here every summer), etc.
2. Partner with local pro's - finding a few people who specialize in weddings, events, portraits and see if I can get some referral work for sports shoots or maybe some telephoto work as a second at a wedding?
3. Approach local vets and groomers and offer to trade prints they can hang in their office for referrals from their customers.

I'm wondering if any of those sound realistic for trying to recoup a few thousand dollars over a year or two? That would make the price at least a bit easier to swallow.

Thanks for any suggestions!

If it is a hobby, the simple question is: Can you afford it. Yes, if you want it, buy it. No? Why are you even thinking about buying it.

This may mean that it can take years before you buy another lens, but why not? Unless abuse, lenses don't really go bad and can be enjoyed for a long time. ("don't really" as apparently on some old 24-70 or 24-80 lenses the glue between elements turns opaque - and moving parts are obviously subject to wear and tear - however over a time span of 10 years or more that isn't so bad.)

As to bringing in money: Sure it can be done, but it is work in itself - which means it will turn from a hobby into a part time occupation which may mean you enjoy it less.

Then you should wait a year (and save up for it in the meantime). A hobby is not worth owing 14.99%+ to the banks and impacting your credit score.

You should never borrow from your credit card unless it's an emergency. Anyone who does missed Borrowing 101 class. Based on what happened in 2008, seems like A LOT of people missed that class.

I'm agreeing with all those that say that there's no reason to "justify" the purchase. You "Do. Or do not.' to quote Yoda.

I consider myself frugal by nature but I like cameras (up-front sunk costs), watches (up front and expensive every few years for service), guns (up-front and every time I go to the range), golf (up-front and every time I hit the course to say nothing of the golf trips that occasionally get into $100+ range for the golf alone).

At least I don't fish ($35K boat and $40K truck to tow the boat) like my wife's uncle.

Finally my favorite "hobby" is my 4-year old daughter and she is CRAZY expensive. $1000/mo school, $175/mo dance, $150/mo swimming. Add in food and it really gets nuts!

Why do you need to justify it with any other reason than you want it and will use it?

I have had hobbies over the years in which I have spent $$ on for myself and my boys. Remote control cars have cost me thousands. Slot cars cost me thousands. I have a motorcycle and gear which cost me many thousands. (Though I do get a small return on 35mpg vs the 17 my truck gets) I've gotten into breweing beer. I've done woodworking.

In all that I've done I didn't justify it using any reason other than it is my life and money and I am going to spend money on what I like doing and what makes me happy. Right now that means guns and photography.

If you can afford it and you want it buy it. Otherwise don't.

Nothing in the scenario that you laid out indicates you will make a dime let alone cover the cost of this glass.

In the last 4 months, I have bought a 200 2.8, 16-35 2.8, 135 2 and 15 2.8 fisheye. I've sold the 16-35 for more than I paid and I'm confident I can break even on the other lenses. All of them are second hand. I figure I can try different lenses and if needed or I'm not liking a lens, sell them on.

Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS Sport, now runs between $3000 (iffy online store) and 3600 (dependable retailers). Heavier than the Canon but quite sharp and more versatile for sports and portraiture. Check out the lens archive for samples of photos. I know all too well the lure of the big expensive Canons. Good luck.

if you are looking to shoot wildlife I think you will be highly dissapointed in the reach of the 300mm