The "great glass" decision
Where should you be dropping coin on your hobby? A heck of a question ... with some reasonable expectations of an answer.
Over the past few years, I have dropped some serious coin on this hobby, because as you progress through your needs and criticisms ... you begin to see the important points of improvement. More often than not, it is with the glass you use, not necessarily the camera body you shoot from. Cheap lenses simply do not have the necessary contrast or color response across the spectrum. Sure, they work in a reasonable way under "optimum" lighting, but we rarely have that. Usually, we are with an abundance of imperfect light ... so, you need a little help, and that is usually found in wide-aperture (fast) glass and lenses of overall better quality.
In my own way, I still realize I am easily looking at another $5,000-$10,000 in common base lenses to have "cream of the crop" response from my Full Frame camera. In the meantime, I cruise along with the medium-cost glass (usually TAMRON) and have been, on average, delighted with what I can produce with it. I have to remind myself, it is JUST A HOBBY ... and until I have serious need for optimum glass, it can wait. I still get very reasonable light response from the current selections of lenses I have. Even the high-end lenses cannot go much wider. I have to admit, I have added one or two important lens choices, as solid fall backs, along the way to a FULL bag of top-drawer glass.
If you look in your bag and total the cost, of average-to-great DSLR glass (APS-C or FF) ... it will usually be around $6,000-$10,000. Anything less and you are either finding excellent bargains somewhere ... or you really are not using solid choices for your hobby. This is an exercise that I have been doing for the past 4-years ... and the weird thing is ... it always seems to be around the same cost. The price points of lenses really do not change that often or by that much, unlike camera bodies and technological advances.
If every photographer were only allowed the following six lenses
- 20mm f/1.8
- 28mm f/1.8
- 50mm f/1.4
- 85mm f/1.4
- 135mm f/1.8
- 200mm f/2.8
high-order lenses in their bags (no zooms), chances are most of your photographic needs would be covered completely, indoors and outdoors (minus super-telephoto). (Yes, you will have to walk to and fro for framing)
Pricing those lenses out:
- SIGMA 20mm f/1.8 DG RF EX($569) - Sony-mount
- SIGMA 28mm f/1.8 DG EX ($379) - Sony-mount
- SIGMA 50mm f/1.4 DG EX ($499) - Sony-mount
- SONY CZ 85mm f/1.4 ($1369)
- SONY CZ 135mm f/1.8 ($1479)
- Minolta AF 200mm f/2.8 APO G HS (~$1000)
for a total bag o' glass, tipping the scale at 8.11 lbs and the wallet at $5295
A great selection of lenses is hard to beat. May we all be so blessed -> Let there be LIGHT!.
The thing is, you could cap these lenses off with a pair of darker zooming ones to cover UWA (for APS-C) with the SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/3.5 DC EX ($649) and super-telephoto outdoor shots with the TAMRON SP AF 200-500mm f/5-6.3 Di LD ($869) ... and have a real power bag. But, that's almost another $1500!
Okay, let's face it ... if you were a new photographer and blessed with this $6500 bag of glass and the "bang for the buck" bargain you get with buying a new a700.
I have to say, "Anything else would just be sauce for the goose ... because, it is done, my friends!"
On the other hand ...
suppose you were in the mood to compromise a bit ... and could live with an f/2.8 BASE aperture in all your glass. You want it top-drawer ...
If you are kind of bent out of shape with all of the lens changing of the "PRIME" solution, consider this one:
If you are willing to spend only about $5 more than the selection of the aforementioned PRIMES will have cost you ...
- you can keep the "one-size-fits-all" solution for your lens filters (all three lenses below are ø77mm)
- lose about 2 stops of light (widest zoom base aperture is f/2.8)
- and actually shave a full pound of actual bag weight, overall,
and go with SONY's high-end zoom selections.
(I know -> wow) ... but yeah, same range ... even a bit wider
Sony SAL-1635Z 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* (1.9 lb) ....... $1,899.99
Sony SAL-2470Z 24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* (2.2 lb) ................... $1,599.99
Sony SAL-70200G Zoom AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G(D) SSM (3 lb) ...................... $1,799.99
Total .................................................. ............................................. (7.1 lb) ...$5,299.97
I guess what I am trying to say, is that if you are really concerned about quality and overall performance ... going PRIME or ZOOM, with top-drawer glass ... is about the same overall cost. You can make your decisions anyway you want, but these are just a couple of facts to consider BEFORE you really start buying into your glass. Let the cash register ring with joy!
Good luck ... and as the most interesting man in the world says, "Stay thirsty, my friends."
Having loftier aspirations and respect for my artform
Aside from the usual political rhetoric concerning conspicuous consumption, "if I had more, I could do more" comes to mind. In a way, it is the underlying sentiment, here in the United States, and perhaps the driving force in just about everything the capitalism ideal represents.
Another one, "if you build it, they will come" presents the marketing opportunity that people tend to adore.
Arguably, you can get a picture from a hollowed-out brick, a little hole drilled in one side of it and a film-back on the other ... and you could call it "photography." Somehow, I think that argument is just evading the discussion, because when you reach in your pocket for funds, for better glass, you kind of pull up short ... but, for the moment, let's say that was not the issue. That you actually had the funding for whatever your heart desired. :D My question would be: "Would you deny yourself the opportunity to 'improve' your art, for the sake of saying, "I'm a purist and believe I am doing just fine with what I have?" Is your art that altruistic that you would forbid it the chance to 'see' what it could be with a better optic? What if Galileo, Copernicus or even Carl Zeiss had stopped their pursuit ... satisfied they could not improve?
Personally, if I had to make the 'better' optic myself, I contend that it is THAT level of interest in a hobby that is truly the "driving force." Going beyond the 'norm' and loving the art for what YOU can do with it ... at all costs (within reason, of course).
The art, today, is at a much higher standard than most of us can appreciate, in our limited place ... and we rely on outside agencies to provide compatible and adequate quantities of these devices to satisfy our ... desire. We are the market. If we demand higher and higher levels of quality and capability, we strive to achieve the motivation for the providers of such technology to "step up" and ... provide!
By sitting back, seemingly satisfied, and finding ourselves content with mulling around in current technology and left overs from the past ... we do our hobby a disservice ... and if anything, dwell in a world of mediocrity and not worthy of the visionaries who proceeded us.
Acch, why bother, right? To each ... their own. :cool: