What to do if you cannot afford everything ...
The simple fact is ... NOTHING IS SIMPLE.
Plain and simple.
(I'll just use a simplistic approach for an answer.)
Building a lens collection from the past can be a real test. Mixing the old with the new often creates a lot of intersections. As Jim points out ... and continues to, ad nauseum, my collection is tightly focused in the 28mm, because it is a "crossroad" focal length for film and digital Full Frame/APS-C sensors.
Admittedly, my collection is as such that the "film lenses" are now idle and left at home with film bodies ... in the photographic morgue. The sad fact is ... film shooting is effectively dead, because of costs and time to turn things around. Yes, there are those who still hold fast to its value ... and if all the electric goes away, it still works. Having the pieces of gear is not costing anything and as it is worth less and less, to the point of becoming unsellable, it is just not worth the trouble to try.
So, Jim ... just ignore those film lenses. I know you see them as some kind of eye-irritant, but simply wave it away! :rolleyes: Focus on more important things. I'm more of a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of guy. I have gone through the learning curve ... and would like to help others cut through the bulk of it and not have to do likewise. My pains do not have to be yours. But, I guess I do not understand YOUR NEED to rub salt into those ancient wounds. It was a growth process ... and I did not have the luxury of having all this fine gear available 15 years ago! Did you?
I propose, instead of revisiting my past, you try and promote building on it. One day, I'll remove the film bodies and associated hardware from "My Gear List" ... but until that day comes, you are stuck looking at it, time and again. HINT: Just hold your hand over the offending parts. Unlike the progressives, I am not rewriting history, just to have it fit into someone else's idea of "Heaven on Earth." ;)
I can see you are a deeply calculating person, 'Rooz' ... party on! If it does not fit ... you will not admit, right?
Originally Posted by Rooz
I have made an EDIT to the posting in order to conclude the exercise, properly (see "dark orchid" text). 'Rooz', I apologize that I was in the middle of drafting it, when you posted your previous assertion and I went ahead and posted it, as a quick response, alas, uncompleted.
Completely missing the point!!!
For those of you who love bagging on Don for his lens collection, you completely missed the point of his post.
Life is full of choices. I absolutely agree that if you can afford the best quality lens (camera or other tool) you will be better served in the long run of taking the hit in the wallet and getting it. (That's why I went from a fixed lens DSLR strait to the A900 - no sense buying one of the APS-C models when I ultimately would want FF.) But more often than not most of us have to work long and hard to marshal disposable income to afford the $1K plus for good quality glass.
I suspect that the vast majority of the "lurkers" that view this site (and other DSLR forums) will probably only buy 1-3 lenses for their DSLR. I am constantly amazed at how many people I meet that have only one lens for their DSLR and it's usually the kit lens that came with the camera. In my book, those people are completely missing out on the beauty of DSLRs and interchangeable glass.
It really comes down to what you want out of your DSLR and what can you afford (over what time span). As I read Don's original post, if you got the money to spend and you want high quality you can cover a good range with the Sony/Zeiss quality glass in a combination of 3 lenses for just under $6K. However, for those to whom photography is a hobby competing with the cost of life or other hobby's, they can try to cover a wide range with the dreaded kit lenses or cover the same range with reasonable quality glass from Tamron or Sigma for about 1/3 the cost. Or, there are those like myself who want to take their photography to a higher level but rarely have a large cash reserve to immediately invest in the high quality Sony/Zeiss lenses.
So what do you do? What choices do you make when you're building a lens collection? If you only have about $1.5K to invest in glass and it will be a year or two before you can plunk down another $1.5K on glass, what do you do? Do you buy a single Sony/Zeiss lens and miss out on other ranges or macro capability for the time it's going to take you to afford the next choice? Do you spend that $1.5K on the lower cost glass to get you a decent range so you have photographic choices while you save up for the high priced glass?
Here's an idea!!!! Rather than bagging on Don's lens collection, how about explaining why you think the average person who might be viewing this site and trying to decide which lenses to buy is better served splurging on the high quality/high priced glass. Are there situations you've experienced where a Zeiss lens has helped produce such a superior quality image that you're glad you didn't have to shoot it with a Tamron, Sigma or, god for bid, a kit lens?
Even I mis-keyed on this "Off Topic" assault
Originally Posted by DWessel
Thanks for putting this back on track. These non-SONY members keep trying to make it a personal dig
... and I fall for it. :o
Okay ... thanks for getting this old train down the road. Attachment 50498
Build Quality? When does this come into play?
One of the aspects of third party glass, which no one that I have noted has taken to task is "destructibility." Yes, taking your lens into a toxic environment and knowing it may not come out ... "alive."
Personally, build quality be damned, we're going in "third-party" on this one.
I look at build quality as kind of "temporary" stop along the way, i.e., "Yeah, I kind of am wondering what focal length I want to invest in ... but, I am still not quite sure." So, you buy a $350 KM or older TAMRON 17-35mm f/2.8-4 lens ... feeling it out in your shoots. Yes, it is a plastic marvel and suddenly, it hits you, "Yeah, this is it." You finally reach deep for the powerfully-built CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 "knowing:" it has all the bells and whistles a lens like this can offer ... for $1900, as a permanent addition to your selection and you wind up selling the cheap one to "Cousin Joey" for $300.
"Nah, I'm not needing this." hits you and you still wind up selling it to "Cousin Joey" for $300. Who cares? You are not using it!
The fact is that better-built lenses are designed with the heavy-handed user in mind. They take a better beating, keep working and one has only to look at a vintage 1998 Minolta white lens to be able to tell that.
If you "baby" your lenses (padded bags and cases), the better build means a bit less, overall. You can nurse they puppies through at least 5 to 10 years, until the plastics give it up. (News flash: Plastic dries out. Don't believe it? I have 1997 motorhome that is living proof metal will still be there, when the sun goes down. The plastics will shatter like glass.)
If there is nothing to wake up to on Christmas morning, in 2012 ... this may just be long-winded :rolleyes:
How does the old saying go ... "He who has the best glass at the end of his life ... WINS!" or something like that.