My new Zeiss 21mm, Canon 35L and 400L 5.6......

that I could have bought......but I didn't. These are all lenses that I have WANTED to add to my bag, but instead I just bought a Canon 300mm f/2.8 IS that I needed. All of the lenses I listed are lenses that I didn't necessarily need, but have wanted to add to my bag. However, I found that I didn't have specific, direct uses for them other than "I want them". The 300mm f/2.8 was different. I've been shooting with my 300L f/4.0 IS for over a year now for theater, and I've struggled every show with it, and the f/4.0 aperture. After spending a considerable time trying to make it work, I came to the realization that I had a legitimate need to upgrade to the f/2.8 brother, a lens that I NEEDED, but not necessarily wanted.

In this process, I did gain a little insight to myself. See, in the past I have accumulated lenses that I just sold because I didn't use them, or in other words, I didn't have specific needs for them. I just wanted them. And what I found out is that a bag full of lenses that I wanted, generally wasn't usefull to me. What is useful to me is a bag full of lenses that I need (because they offer a distinct characteristic that is useful to me for my uses). So while I was making the hard decision to spent the significant amount of money for the 300L 2.8, all I could keep thinking about was how many new lenses I could buy that I wanted. But in the end, I know that I will use the 300L more (because I need it), and get more usefullness out of it, than the lenses I listed in the title.

So, what's the point. Well, I"m not really sure other than to type about this cathartic moment where the "want vs need" moment hit me. Anyone else find themselves foregoing the "sexy" new lens that they wanted in favor of buying the more "boring" lenses that they really needed?

Good points. I only have four lenses, 2 of them being specialty lenses. I had a bunch of lenses that I thought I needed, but didn't. Sold them and put the money into marketing and my business, etc. Haven't looked back.

I just have a tele, fisheye, fast 50mm, and ultrawide. this covers everything i need to do for my job, and i'm not feeling like i'm missing anything at all.

I think that "WANT" is a much stronger pull than "NEED" and creates constant gear churn. Let's be honest, having a bag with lenses that you NEED can be boring. You know your lenses will perform exactly as needed, day in and day out. If you like to do landscapes, and your 17-40L does stellar for your needs, then you almost get bored with it. You almost get tired of using the 17-40LL because it works so well for what you do. So you start to think about a 24L or Zeiss 21, <insert other exotic lens here>, etc. You don't need them, but they are "sexy" and "interesting" and you want them. So you decide to sell your 17-40L and buy one of the "sexy wide lenses".

I think the reality is that most people don't need more than 2-4 lenses. But 3-4 lenses is boring. Canon doesn't want you to buy lenses that you need. They want you to buy lenses that you want.

Focus less on gear and more on making great pictures. A thousand dollars can get you a plane ticket pretty much anywhere in the world these days. I'd rather have some amazing photos than another lens.

I want better photos more than I want another lens, let's put it that way.

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #9984450
I think that "WANT" is a much stronger pull than "NEED" and creates constant gear churn. Let's be honest, having a bag with lenses that you NEED can be boring. You know your lenses will perform exactly as needed, day in and day out. If you like to do landscapes, and your 17-40L does stellar for your needs, then you almost get bored with it. You almost get tired of using the 17-40LL because it works so well for what you do. So you start to think about a 24L or Zeiss 21, <insert other exotic lens here>, etc. You don't need them, but they are "sexy" and "interesting" and you want them. So you decide to sell your 17-40L and buy one of the "sexy wide lenses".

I think the reality is that most people don't need more than 2-4 lenses. But 3-4 lenses is boring. Canon doesn't want you to buy lenses that you need. They want you to buy lenses that you want.

I think you may have stated the reason why I always seem to end up selling a few lenses at the start of every year and buying a similar amount of lenses to replace them. Although I do keep the lenses that work best for me because I know I need them.

I have no lenses that I need and all ones I wanted. Result? I have a lot of lenses. Do I need them? Not at all, but it's my hobby and the value on lenses holds better than my previous hobby of cars and 4x4s.

Now even not needing it, I would have probably gone with the 300 f2.8 over the others too.

Well, I certainly don't want to undersell my excitement with the 300L f/2.8. It is an incredible lens, that I think anyone would welcome to their bag. I'm sure that it will serve my needs perfectly. However, on my ranking of lenses to buy, it certainly wasn't at the top. That Zeiss 21mm is REALLY peaking my interest, however the 300L was promoted to buy status because I simply needed it the most. There were others that I wanted more, but none that I needed more.

Well put David. Couldn't agree with you more.

Although I have more than a few lenses I tend to take a long time deciding whether to buy a lens. My process is based entirely on need....why do I need it, how often I will use it, and do I have something already that can substitute. So far I have sold only 1 lens and that was the 10-22 when I went to a FF. I will be selling one of my MF lenses but I knew that going in when I bought 2 wide angles.

At the moment I have nothing in my wishlist and may, actually, consolidate a couple of lens in the fall. Every lens I have, I use.

This is the kind of situation I find myself in with the 85L. I have the 85 1.8 but rarely use it and when I do it suits my needs fine. I just can't justify the $1700-1800 (after discounts) for something that might come out of my bag once a month.

I know we're in the lens forum, but I'm struggling with this concept right now regarding the 5D II. For me the real benefit of FF is the fact that EF lenses have the "proper" FOV and DOF vs a crop body. You can get a Sigma 30mm for much less than the 35L but the DOF isn't as shallow and it's no longer wide on a crop body. The 24 TS-E isn't really that wide on crop. The 17-55 doesn't go as wide or long as the 24-105 (on FF). But is that really worth a few thousand dollars? >.<

Good post. I'd like to have loads of lenses. I find myself very content with my 24-70, 70-200, 50 prime and 100 macro setup. (The Sigma 120-300 is awesome when I need it and fantastically sharp)

czeglin wrote in post #9985579
I know we're in the lens forum, but I'm struggling with this concept right now regarding the 5D II. For me the real benefit of FF is the fact that EF lenses have the "proper" FOV and DOF vs a crop body. You can get a Sigma 30mm for much less than the 35L but the DOF isn't as shallow and it's no longer wide on a crop body. The 24 TS-E isn't really that wide on crop. The 17-55 doesn't go as wide or long as the 24-105 (on FF). But is that really worth a few thousand dollars? >.<

Hehe, cross post.

Well, lucky for you that the lens you NEEDED happens to be one sexy lens in its own right! Like having your cake and eating it too.

Same way that I came to selling my Zeiss 21. That was a personal pleasure lens. For paid shots, the IQ of the new 70-200 won out, so I sold the Zeiss and got the 2.8 IS II. It's not that I wanted it, but decided that it would go to a better cause.