How does a hobby photographer justify a $6000 lens?

not sure if this is an option for you in your area:

Here in Atlanta you can rent that lens for under $50 for a 3 day weekend with IS $80, and its always available!

PPR Atlanta

can you plan your outings around weekend rentals?

I agree that lens is pretty awesome

https://ppratlanta.com …s/equipment-rentals/#DS-7

but if you need that full price justification, you can always resell it and have hundreds if not thousands of photos to keep

Id rent it if I were you.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17409611
In your case, I am not really understanding the need/desire to make money via photography. For you it is a hobby. Many thousands of people have all kinds of different hobbies, and they do them because they enjoy them. When it's a hobby, people typically buy what they can afford and just enjoy doing it. This is what golfers do, what hunters do, what fishermen do, what hikers do, what football fans do, what sailboat enthusiasts do, what sky divers do, what........well, it is what hobbyists do. They buy the gear they can afford, go on the outings they can afford, and enjoy.

And if you think photo gear is expensive, then you should look into what people spend for other hobbies - many other hobbies are far, far more expensive than photography.........$2​5,000 bass boats and $10,000 golf vacations come to mind.

People who sky dive don't normally try to get cash out of the hobby to justify the expense of parachutes and airplane rides. People who like to motorboat and water ski don't try to "find a way to make it pay". People who are football fans don't try to earn money via the sport to justify those season tickets. People who like to canoe and kayak don't try to rent their canoes and kayaks out to their friends and neighbors to help recoup the costs of their last canoeing vacation.

Why are people who buy camera gear different that this? SO MANY people who choose photography as a hobby try to suck money from it. Why can't they do what any other hobbyist does and just enjoy the hobby they've chosen and let it go at that?
_______________


Ok. My rant is over. But I do have one piece of advice:
If you find some inner need to justify a $6,000 lens expenditure, then look at it like this - you pay $6,000 for the lens, use it to your heart's content for years and years and years...........and then if you want to, you can sell it for $4,500. Quality lenses barely depreciate at all, either long-term or short-term. It is money well spent.
_______________

I agree Tom, I have spend WAY more on hunting over the years than on my photography hobby.

Sailors spend far more money on sailboats and accessories, in pure pursuit of personal satisfaction.
Folks spend hundreds of thousands on fancy cars, which never make a dollar for them.
Why not a photographer spend $6000 on a lens, with zero intent to ever earn a dollar toward the purchase of that lens?!

duckster wrote in post #19345901
.
I agree Tom, I have spend WAY more on hunting over the years than on my photography hobby.
.

.
Yeah, a close friend of mine went on a Bighorn Sheep hunt two years ago. . Spent $12,000 for a week of guided hunting, didn't get a chance at a ram, so he went ahead and spent another $12,000 for an additional week. . Still no ram. . So $24,000 to hike around the mountains for two week, with no chance at a ram. . Not to mention the thousands of dollars spent over the years buying lottery chances at a tag, and all of the other incidentals that add up to thousands more. . That's the reality of big game hunting, for those who can afford to pursue special species like Bighorns/

Years ago, when I hunted, it meant buying a boat, a gas motor for the boat, an electric motor, a trailer for the boat, upgrading from a compact car to a full size truck so I could tow the trailer and boat, insuring the truck and trailer and boat, dozens and dozens of duck and goose decoys, out-of-state licenses, many nights in hotels, lots of tanks of gasoline, etc. . Guns and ammo were just tiny little expenses compared to the things you have to keep buying over and over like hotel rooms, tanks of gasoline, guide fees, etc.

People who say that photography is "so expensive" seem to have no clue about how much money people spend on other hobbies.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19346089
.
Yeah, a close friend of mine went on a Bighorn Sheep hunt two years ago. . Spent $12,000 for a week of guided hunting, didn't get a chance at a ram, so he went ahead and spent another $12,000 for an additional week. . Still no ram. . So $24,000 to hike around the mountains for two week, with no chance at a ram. . Not to mention the thousands of dollars spent over the years buying lottery chances at a tag, and all of the other incidentals that add up to thousands more. . That's the reality of big game hunting, for those who can afford to pursue special species like Bighorns/

Years ago, when I hunted, it meant buying a boat, a gas motor for the boat, an electric motor, a trailer for the boat, upgrading from a compact car to a full size truck so I could tow the trailer and boat, insuring the truck and trailer and boat, dozens and dozens of duck and goose decoys, out-of-state licenses, many nights in hotels, lots of tanks of gasoline, etc. . Guns and ammo were just tiny little expenses compared to the things you have to keep buying over and over like hotel rooms, tanks of gasoline, guide fees, etc.

People who say that photography is "so expensive" seem to have no clue about how much money people spend on other hobbies.

.

Rough hunt for sure. Nowadays, if I am considering a expensive guided hunt, it is to Africa where for that same $12500, I would be guaranteed of at least some shooting and probably 4-6 different animals.

Lobstrosity wrote in post #17409960
I appreciate the feedback everybody. I agree, I think it's okay to justify spending $6000 on a lens if it's the only real hobby I have. If nothing else, I've at least got that justification, right?

I was just trying to decide if it was realistic to gain some money back with my gear. I appreciated the analogies to all the other hobbies, especially the car and the canoe. I've got this big professional, expert skill set and when I look at things from the perspective some of you've pointed out it makes a whole lot more sense for me to use that skill set to make money to contribute toward my hobby rather than try and make money with an amateur skill set. I guess now it just comes down to me setting a hobby budget and knowing that it's okay to spend x amount on my hobby without worrying about return.

As far as the lens: The new 100-400 is definitely another one I've got my eye on. 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. I worry I may feel the same about the 100-400, but I haven't looked too seriously at it yet and I should probably browse through some image libraries. I've still got a while before I can realistically consider any big lens purchases anyway.

Greatly appreciated!

Basically. I regularly haul about 15k of camera gear around with me on an outing and I don't make a cent off of my photos; I just really enjoy the hobby. My only justification is making sure that the expenditure isn't negatively impacting my ability to make the monthlies, etc. The other half has her books and I've got my cameras and the only thing we worry about is not making each other have to cover our fair share of things <shrug>

If you are paying your bills, and you are putting sufficient money aside to support yourself in retirement, does it really matter that you spend some money that will never result in the production of profit/income?! That's what 'discretionary income' is for.

Lobstrosity wrote in post #17409971
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.

LOL. I don't sell my home improvement gear, either. You should see my garage. My wife doesn't ask me why I need my lenses, but she does wonder why I need so many drills.

Looks like many here are not aware of Leica Camera AG and their M product line.
To get one no AF, no IBIS, no dust reduction digital M camera with Leica labeled lens you have to pay above 10000 USD.

It is not professional, but hobbyists brand. 99% of professionals have abandoned this brand due to awful price and not impressive capabilities. Mediocre service is on top of it. LCAG doesn't service their SL series cameras in NA, only in Germany, with turn around of weeks and months. Leica doesn't have knowledge of flash TTL and their cameras are plagued with production quality issues.

But where is waiting time for some of their cameras and lenses.

If I would have pile of cash, I would get another digital M and couple of lenses. Leica products are most addictive camera gear I even used.

Check LCAG lenses prices:
https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …rs=fct_brand_na​me%3Aleica

28 f5.6 manual focus lens is ... 3000.
35 1.4 manual focus lens is 6000.
90 1.5 manual focus lens is ... 14 000.

I know only one honorable POTN member who is real professional and using LCAG cameras and few lenses.
The rest I'm aware of are total hobbyists.

Buying a Leica is like buying a $200000 car...simply because you CAN!

The working guy does not buy it because he cannot afford it, and it does not do much that a lesser car or camera cannot do.

https://www.ebay.com …322?hash=item3d​aeab560a:gB8AAOSw4A1fkxBA

I watched a youtube video a while back from a corporate guy who got laid off and is in the middle of trying to become a professional photographer. In the video, he basically opened up his business ledgers. 80% of his income in his second year came from affiliate money from youtube tutorials. He made some money doing personal workshops.

What I found interesting was that he made pretty much zero money just selling his pictures.

I spent 30 years as a pretty serious fly fisherman. There's no such thing as a professional fly fisher. But there are people who love it so much they want to make a living off it. Outfitters and guides are where most of them end up. Neither of those things primarily involve wetting a line. They came for the fishing and ended up rowing a drift boat 10 hours a day all summer.

And let's give a little love to the latest-gear-at-any-cost hobbyists. They take the first hit on the depreciation of high-end gear and don't beat it up like a pro might. They're the best source for used gear.

drsilver wrote in post #19378287
I watched a youtube video a while back from a corporate guy who got laid off and is in the middle of trying to become a professional photographer. In the video, he basically opened up his business ledgers. 80% of his income in his second year came from affiliate money from youtube tutorials. He made some money doing personal workshops.

What I found interesting was that he made pretty much zero money just selling his pictures.

I spent 30 years as a pretty serious fly fisherman. There's no such thing as a professional fly fisher. But there are people who love it so much they want to make a living off it. Outfitters and guides are where most of them end up. Neither of those things primarily involve wetting a line. They came for the fishing and ended up rowing a drift boat 10 hours a day all summer.

Reminds me of what a friend of mine once said. He's an editor for one of our major national newspapers here and a very active, passionate birder. I asked him once why he didn't make birds his profession, be an ornithologist e.g. He said "What? And lose a fantastic hobby? No thanks!" And he was right of course.

FWIW I think the O.P. made his decision about seven years ago...

I also would love a 300/2.8 and also have zero financial justification for buying one. But it would make my for-fun sports photography more enjoyable. Right now I can get to 280 with a 1.4x but of course I drop to f/4. With the 300 I could be 300 at 2.8 and 420 at f/4. I know this is a slippery slope but that would be a major step and the $$$ for the next step (400/2.8) is ridiculous.

He mentioned being a second at weddings with it but does anyone want the perspective-free portraits that you get with super teles?

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19378366
FWIW I think the O.P. made his decision about seven years ago...

I also would love a 300/2.8 and also have zero financial justification for buying one. But it would make my for-fun sports photography more enjoyable. Right now I can get to 280 with a 1.4x but of course I drop to f/4. With the 300 I could be 300 at 2.8 and 420 at f/4. I know this is a slippery slope but that would be a major step and the $$$ for the next step (400/2.8) is ridiculous.

He mentioned being a second at weddings with it but does anyone want the perspective-free portraits that you get with super teles?

If you want a new 300 f2.8 IS II you better act fast. Looks like Canon has discontinued the lens.

But used copies should be on the market for a very long time.

Well there are three versions of them and I'm sure fantastic photos have been taken with all of them. No need to spend $6000.

EF 300mm f/2.8L - can be found in the $1500 range in rough shape
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS - $2500~3000 maybe
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II - $4500+

Optics improved every generation, and it's easy to get sucked into thinking that the older ones must be awful but there's just no way that's accurate. I shoot with the original 70-200/2.8 which wasn't known for legendary optics and I have done just fine.

I only have two of the MTF charts for the 300 but: