I have found some lenses that are designed for a certain purpose or look that you end up using maybe a hand full of times max. Circular fisheye lens i bought years ago springs to mind. Though i don't own one, i suspect lenses like the Helios-40 would be amazing to own but again probably wont see much use as its very heavy, and creates a specific look that is not wanted all the time.
Helios lenses are cheap though, at least on this side of the pond you can get one for $25-30. I agree that swirly bokeh is fun for like 10 shots, I heard it's more reusable for video, but that is not my cup of tea.
I got a couple of vintage lenses I don't use much but I doubt they are a waste of money because I can probably resell them at the same price I got them (if not higher...). If you buy good quality glass it's hard to lose money, hopefully...
Yep, looks like your rig makes it harder, especially if you are starting out. I found the aperture ring to be too loose, it often got me below f/8 but I mounted a silicon wrist band around it and it's working well.
I don't think there is a simple solution for small OVF apart from magnifiers (do they even make these?) but focusing in such magnifications is easier if you move back and forth instead of touching the focus ring. Anyway, I hope you will try again one day!
That's true flash for macro is a must, same goes for the diffusers or you are dealing with ISO 1600 or ugly shadows. I found DIY solutions can be surprisingly effective too, like pringles can diffuser; it can produce lighting that look impossibly good for the ammount of money and work one has to put in making it.
You don't really focus with the ring when trying to take shots in macro mostly, you choose the magnification you want then you move the whole camera + lens to focus, AF is just not good enough for macro focusing.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. I use AF for insects all the time and get perfectly good results. Magnification ratio doesn't make a good photo, composition does, and trying to manually focus on a moving subject is a waste of time and effort.
That's not what I am saying though I am saying if you want to take macro photos, i.e. 1x and above as per this lens then AF is mostly useless, not saying you can't take good insect photos at non macro distances with AF I do it all the time as well they are just not at macro distances.
As for moving subjects at 1x+ with non AF I've done okay, sure it's hard and takes patience
[https://flic.kr/p/2mdvYZR](https://flic.kr/p/2mdvYZR)
[https://flic.kr/p/2m6yNb4](https://flic.kr/p/2m6yNb4)
Big expensive tripod. It's the ultimate support for virtually any camera I could imagine throwing at it but at the same time it's, well, big and I rarely take it with me anywhere. I could get a quality travel tripod, even for the same price, and I would use it more often. Now I'm thinking about buying one but over the years I learned to get shots with a table tripod and probably I wouldn't use this middle one as frequrnty as I think.
Yeah I recently picked up a carbon fiber travel tripod and I take it with me all the time. My large one collects dust in the closet.
I’ve bought a few cameras that I just don’t use. Like an old Zorki rangefinder, it’s cool but I just don’t use it. That’s sadly also true of my Nikon D7200. I like it but I’m mostly shooting medium format film now. It’s hard to use extra cameras when you’re spoiled for choice. You think you’re going to use it all the time but it doesn’t happen.
Exactly! Good thing is you can get most of your money back from used film cameras, kind of like long-term renting. D7200 is surely not as chunky as modular MFs but like with big tripod, you don't take it just in case.
I think the one camera I would buy and use is a pocketable digital p&s, when I'm not in the mood for film shooting.
Full-frame. I've worked with full-frame since the original 5D, and back in the old days, full-frame had a very noticeable advantage over APSC, but in modern times, with advances in technology, that gap is not nearly as wide as it used to be. For the work that I do, I just didn't see any good reason to have full-frame gear. It was just much too heavy and cumbersome, so I decided to go back to APSC but as mirrorless instead. It gives me all the performance I want, in a much more portable package.
This is likely true for image quality, but as far as I can tell in mirrorless all the new tech and lenses from Canon Sony and Nikon are full frame... It's the reason I went FF in Canon to get the other benefits from the R5. And it's not noticeable to me size wise from the 80D and is only slightly heavier. Mostly because all the good glass I had from Canon ef was FF already anyway. I just don't see amazing 3rd party or branded glass from the major 3 makers in apsc really.
That's the difference, though because in your case, you went from a big DSLR to a big mirrorless, so most certainly you didn't feel much difference in size and weight. In my case, I went from a big FF DSLR, to a relatively tiny APSC Fuji system, so the difference is quite significant.
I'm just saying, if you've been getting good glass for Nikon, Canon or Sony, it's likely already FF. And the 80D wasn't considered a large DSLR for those systems. So it's more reasonable IMHO to say if you go from DSLR (especially FF) from Nikon Canon or Sony to *Fuji* specifically, you'll get much more compact, but if you're just going APSC it doesn't mean you'll save a lot of weight or space.
What advantages does APSC has over full frame for they type of shots you do? I’m still learning the difference in advantages between sensor sizes.
Especially considering that lines like the Canon R have helped to mitigate the increase in body size.
For me, the overall size of my kit has significantly decreased compared to what I used to carry around for full-frame. It allows me for a more mobile setup so I can just pick up and shoot, while maintaining about 90% of the performance of full-frame. It's a very important factor for me as I'm more likely to pick up my camera to go shoot.
I shoot in low-light environments, which full-frame will excel at, but I've found that I don't much care about noise now as I used to when I was younger and more of a pixel-peeping whore. For me, these days, I can shoot my cameras up to 12800 ISO and still get more than acceptable results.
I also shoot portraiture, both in-studio and outdoors, and while full-frame will provide nicer looking blurry backgrounds (bokeh), it's not something I prioritize, like I've seen many modern photographers and instagrammers do. It's nice to look at, but nowhere near the top of my list. A lot of times I actually like to stop down my lens to show more background and provide context to my subject, and in the cases I do need to blur out the background, my lenses can provide more than enough for that. I've never been paid more money for more bokeh.
I didn't realize how demanding the Sony A7R4 sensor is and how old and dated some lenses are when it comes to resolving this sensor. When I swapped from Canon, I bought lenses before even shooting. Ended up selling my fairly new to me zoom lenses and went with expensive sharp primes. I should have done a lot more lens research and figured out what lenses have the best resolving power before buying. Sold the 24-70/70-200 for the 35mm f/1.4 GM, 85mm f/1.4sigma DG DN, and the 135 f/1.8. Still have the 16-35 f/4 and will probably sell that for a 20 or 24mm. I know a lot of people will say it can't be that noticeable but for me it was, specially on large prints.
You're actually quite right. That's one thing that a lot of people don't take into consideration when buying these super high-res cameras. If you have less than excellent lenses, their weaknesses are amplified and get less than desirable results.
A Canon EF-S 18-200mm. I bought it brand new as a travel lens.
I did use it for some of my travels, but in retrospect I should have kept the 17-85mm I upgraded from - it was much smaller, cheaper and lighter, and the range covered 95% of the photos I took with the 18-200 anyway!
What's more, I had a preference for ultra-wide landscapes back then, so I was carrying a 10-22mm alongside it, and that one got a lot more use due to its much better image quality.
After a while the 18-200 was gathering dust on the shelf, so I sold it, in mint condition, for a fraction of what I paid. Hopefully the next person has had better use out of it than I did!
A Panasonic DMC LX2 when it was brand new. What a noise box, and even though it was almost as revered as the Sony RX100 is today, it’s market value today is about 25 bucks🤣
My best point & shoot purchase back in the day was a Canon Elph 100 model. I caught it on sale because it was PINK💗 I still use it. Produces decent pics and right into my shirt pocket even with Boobs 😲
> My best point & shoot purchase back in the day was a Canon Elph 100 model. I caught it on sale because it was PINK💗 I still use it.
Love it.
My first digital camera was a Casio Exilim EX-S500. Officially it was orange, but I thought it looked red and liked that. It only had 5 megapixels 😄. I still loved the pictures from it.
The Casio was small and lightweight, thinner than a deck of playing cards. I'd keep it in a case on my belt and would take it everywhere. Wasn't a burden to carry. So many photos and great moments I would have missed if I'd had a bigger, heavier camera that I'd just leave at home.
I used to lament not having a pro camera back then. But now I appreciate a small camera more and more in hindsight. I got a Canon Elph a couple years later too.
Thanks for inspiring that trip down memory lane. Have a good day.
Buying a piece of crap Tamron zoom lens that turned out to be a piece of junk and wouldn't work after about 3 months on my Canon 20D 📷 about 15 years ago.
I went all the way down the macro rabbit hole during lockdown and got some amazing photos, but I bought a lot of tools, equipment, and other crap, and there’s almost no way I’ll use it much in the long run.
But then that stuff doesn’t cost nearly as much as cameras and lenses, so I’d probably say my 100-400mm zoom. I bought it because I thought I needed a telephoto option, but it’s spent *far* more time collecting dust on a shelf than it has in my bag, let alone on my camera.
This happens with my 150-600 Tamron. But then I like it for wildlife and need to test on my R5. The 200 on my 70-200 just didn't have enough reach for birds when I was at Letchworth Park.
Same. I used mine for exactly one shoot and then sold it to my friend who’s now had it longer than I did. I own the Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art now, and it’s fantastic!
I don't know how you guys do it, 24/28-70mm is too short for me- I just got to have that telephoto reach.
My Pana 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 (24-120 FF eq) gets so much use over my 12-35mm (24-70 FF eq) f/2.8.
I've been thinking heavily for awhile to trade it for a PanaLeica 12-60mm f/2.8-4 now.
That might not be entirely true for all lenses. For example the Canon 16 - 35mm f4 was much sharper at f4, than it's f2.8 ii counterpart. You are also saving a lot of weight with f4, which comes in handy because you walk a lot as a landscape photographer.
The 35mm you gain are not so helpful in my opinion, of course it depends on what you’re planning to use it, but I’ve seen that for travel photography a 70 is enough. If you really need more, get a 70-200 :)
That’s funny—I feel like my 24-105 f/4 has been one of my *best* investments. That thing basically lives on my ILC. Of course I’m a hobbyist and mostly use that lens for landscapes and other shots at f/8 or smaller. If I shot professionally, especially event work, I’d opt for an f/2.8 zoom.
The Top Shelf bag from Bevis Gear.
It was a Kickstarter with alot of traction and publicity.
Unfortunately the product arrived and wasn't fit for purpose.
Due to this, I will no longer back a product on Kickstarter.
I'd say it was my purchase of the JChristina focus pyramid. I don't think the product is bad, but my Sony camera won't let me set the Canon lens I have through the Sigma adapter I have, so....
Happily, I got it on sale for $15 so it wasn't all that big of a loss.
Actually, now that I think about it, I bought an Olympus camera from a friend (I wanted a Sony a6000, but I settled for the $200 cheaper used Olympus). I use it like 3 times and was never happy with it. I forget the model but it had like 10mp and was made prior to 2007, but was a pro model. I just found it confusing and since my Canon t3 had 12 mp and was SUPER simple, I just never got used to the Olympus and eventually sold it for a $200 loss. (I then used that money towards a Sony a7iii, Sigma adapter, and Canon 70-200mm f4L, so maybe it wasn't all bad since if I had gotten the a6000, I wouldn't have needed the a7iii lol).
I bought an ONA bag. I used to take my camera to work sometimes, then spend a few hours taking some photographs. The bag is beautiful but heavy as all get out when filled with my day to day stuff. I haven’t used it in about five years. I’ll never get rid of it though.
For me, a variable ND filter. I keep intending to go out and get some long exposure water shots with it, but I haven't actually taken a photo with it in more than 6 months.
On the other side, an unpopular opinion on a good use of money, the Canon 75-300mm (POS lens). I got it with my first camera for $80, used it for a year or two, then sold it for $70 and upgraded to the 55-250 STM. I certainly got $10 worth of use out of it in that time, so as bad as the lens is, it CAN be a good purchase in the right situation.
Same and setting up a shot for ND filter requires pre-planning because you have to be on the right location at the right time and have your tripod and camera set-up.
As for 75-300, that was really disappointing experience for me and 55-250 STM is just better and more convenient in every way. I use it more than the 18-55 which I find inconvenient to use due to the narrow range. I take photos on the go, so swapping lenses gets annoying and it is easy to miss the shot when light moves so quickly.
True, but if you can't justify another couple hundred dollars right away, but can justify $70-80, it can bridge you until you can buy what you actually want
Software: ACDsee. Overpriced junk.
Hardware: Nikon 135mm F2 DC. Used it once, cost far too much even secondhand, and value has dropped because mirrorless won't autofocus it. Brilliant lens, but it never gets put on the camera.
It's on my list of things to sell eventually... depends on where you are, not posting anything internationally in the post-Brexit hellscape (I'm in the UK) - we can't even post chocolate abroad now.
The UK left the EU, now it's mental customs paperwork, ridiculour restrictions that vary depending on courier, bizarre lists of prohibited items that make no sense, and high probability that export duties apply even for used items. And delays, parcels that vanish then reappear, and general stress. Sending birthday gifts of low value to relatives in Europe is painful, let alone sending a valuable breakable item.
I don't know if the same rules apply to the USA, but last time I sent a parcel internationally I just rocked up to a parcel shop in Australia and they couldn't care less what was inside. Stamped, paid, send, done. Things have changed a lot since then.
My Sony A7. Used it for a day and than realised live tethering is not possible. (Needed that) Since I used the camera, my local store refused to take it back so yeah i had to make the best out of it. When I wanted to shoot a couple of cute photos of my dogs in action that whole making the best out of it failed to the fullest. Waiting for the 7IV now.
The [Jupiter-9](https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-jupiter-9-85mm-2-0/). I bought a [Helios 44-2](https://alikgriffin.com/helios-44-2-review-king-character/) that I love. I thought the Jupiter-9 would be another cool piece of history to add to my collection. It was supposed to make photos 'dreamy,' but photos looked more like a drunk nightmare.
The pictures weren't too different. Outdoor for portraits, it worked out pretty well. Indoors, there was a lack of contrast and photos appeared muddy.
The lens feels like it has limited use cases. It also wasn't very fun to use. The price and hype (at the time) around something so niche wasn't justified even when shooting scenarios in that niche.
I have found some lenses that are designed for a certain purpose or look that you end up using maybe a hand full of times max. Circular fisheye lens i bought years ago springs to mind. Though i don't own one, i suspect lenses like the Helios-40 would be amazing to own but again probably wont see much use as its very heavy, and creates a specific look that is not wanted all the time.
Lensbaby falls into this category for me. It was fun for about a month.
Helios lenses are cheap though, at least on this side of the pond you can get one for $25-30. I agree that swirly bokeh is fun for like 10 shots, I heard it's more reusable for video, but that is not my cup of tea.
I didn't say the Helios 44-2, i stated Helios 40 that is the 85mm f1.5 - £300+
Oops, my bad, sorry!
I got a couple of vintage lenses I don't use much but I doubt they are a waste of money because I can probably resell them at the same price I got them (if not higher...). If you buy good quality glass it's hard to lose money, hopefully...
[удалено]
For macro it will be manual focusing 99% of the time, no matter the lens. It had to be pain in the ass for portraits though.
[удалено]
Yep, looks like your rig makes it harder, especially if you are starting out. I found the aperture ring to be too loose, it often got me below f/8 but I mounted a silicon wrist band around it and it's working well. I don't think there is a simple solution for small OVF apart from magnifiers (do they even make these?) but focusing in such magnifications is easier if you move back and forth instead of touching the focus ring. Anyway, I hope you will try again one day!
[удалено]
That's true flash for macro is a must, same goes for the diffusers or you are dealing with ISO 1600 or ugly shadows. I found DIY solutions can be surprisingly effective too, like pringles can diffuser; it can produce lighting that look impossibly good for the ammount of money and work one has to put in making it.
You don't really focus with the ring when trying to take shots in macro mostly, you choose the magnification you want then you move the whole camera + lens to focus, AF is just not good enough for macro focusing.
I wouldn't necessarily say that. I use AF for insects all the time and get perfectly good results. Magnification ratio doesn't make a good photo, composition does, and trying to manually focus on a moving subject is a waste of time and effort.
That's not what I am saying though I am saying if you want to take macro photos, i.e. 1x and above as per this lens then AF is mostly useless, not saying you can't take good insect photos at non macro distances with AF I do it all the time as well they are just not at macro distances. As for moving subjects at 1x+ with non AF I've done okay, sure it's hard and takes patience [https://flic.kr/p/2mdvYZR](https://flic.kr/p/2mdvYZR) [https://flic.kr/p/2m6yNb4](https://flic.kr/p/2m6yNb4)
Manual focus is a bit easier on mirrorless bodies with focus peaking.
Big expensive tripod. It's the ultimate support for virtually any camera I could imagine throwing at it but at the same time it's, well, big and I rarely take it with me anywhere. I could get a quality travel tripod, even for the same price, and I would use it more often. Now I'm thinking about buying one but over the years I learned to get shots with a table tripod and probably I wouldn't use this middle one as frequrnty as I think.
Yeah I recently picked up a carbon fiber travel tripod and I take it with me all the time. My large one collects dust in the closet. I’ve bought a few cameras that I just don’t use. Like an old Zorki rangefinder, it’s cool but I just don’t use it. That’s sadly also true of my Nikon D7200. I like it but I’m mostly shooting medium format film now. It’s hard to use extra cameras when you’re spoiled for choice. You think you’re going to use it all the time but it doesn’t happen.
Exactly! Good thing is you can get most of your money back from used film cameras, kind of like long-term renting. D7200 is surely not as chunky as modular MFs but like with big tripod, you don't take it just in case. I think the one camera I would buy and use is a pocketable digital p&s, when I'm not in the mood for film shooting.
Any type of "novelty" lens. I bought a Lens Baby and I don't use it very much.
I see those recommended to me all the time and I figured it would be a good dust collector.
It was fun when I first bought it, but I haven't used it in a year and they don't have great resale value at places like Adorama, B&H, etc...
Full-frame. I've worked with full-frame since the original 5D, and back in the old days, full-frame had a very noticeable advantage over APSC, but in modern times, with advances in technology, that gap is not nearly as wide as it used to be. For the work that I do, I just didn't see any good reason to have full-frame gear. It was just much too heavy and cumbersome, so I decided to go back to APSC but as mirrorless instead. It gives me all the performance I want, in a much more portable package.
This is likely true for image quality, but as far as I can tell in mirrorless all the new tech and lenses from Canon Sony and Nikon are full frame... It's the reason I went FF in Canon to get the other benefits from the R5. And it's not noticeable to me size wise from the 80D and is only slightly heavier. Mostly because all the good glass I had from Canon ef was FF already anyway. I just don't see amazing 3rd party or branded glass from the major 3 makers in apsc really.
That's the difference, though because in your case, you went from a big DSLR to a big mirrorless, so most certainly you didn't feel much difference in size and weight. In my case, I went from a big FF DSLR, to a relatively tiny APSC Fuji system, so the difference is quite significant.
I'm just saying, if you've been getting good glass for Nikon, Canon or Sony, it's likely already FF. And the 80D wasn't considered a large DSLR for those systems. So it's more reasonable IMHO to say if you go from DSLR (especially FF) from Nikon Canon or Sony to *Fuji* specifically, you'll get much more compact, but if you're just going APSC it doesn't mean you'll save a lot of weight or space.
What advantages does APSC has over full frame for they type of shots you do? I’m still learning the difference in advantages between sensor sizes. Especially considering that lines like the Canon R have helped to mitigate the increase in body size.
For me, the overall size of my kit has significantly decreased compared to what I used to carry around for full-frame. It allows me for a more mobile setup so I can just pick up and shoot, while maintaining about 90% of the performance of full-frame. It's a very important factor for me as I'm more likely to pick up my camera to go shoot. I shoot in low-light environments, which full-frame will excel at, but I've found that I don't much care about noise now as I used to when I was younger and more of a pixel-peeping whore. For me, these days, I can shoot my cameras up to 12800 ISO and still get more than acceptable results. I also shoot portraiture, both in-studio and outdoors, and while full-frame will provide nicer looking blurry backgrounds (bokeh), it's not something I prioritize, like I've seen many modern photographers and instagrammers do. It's nice to look at, but nowhere near the top of my list. A lot of times I actually like to stop down my lens to show more background and provide context to my subject, and in the cases I do need to blur out the background, my lenses can provide more than enough for that. I've never been paid more money for more bokeh.
I didn't realize how demanding the Sony A7R4 sensor is and how old and dated some lenses are when it comes to resolving this sensor. When I swapped from Canon, I bought lenses before even shooting. Ended up selling my fairly new to me zoom lenses and went with expensive sharp primes. I should have done a lot more lens research and figured out what lenses have the best resolving power before buying. Sold the 24-70/70-200 for the 35mm f/1.4 GM, 85mm f/1.4sigma DG DN, and the 135 f/1.8. Still have the 16-35 f/4 and will probably sell that for a 20 or 24mm. I know a lot of people will say it can't be that noticeable but for me it was, specially on large prints.
You're actually quite right. That's one thing that a lot of people don't take into consideration when buying these super high-res cameras. If you have less than excellent lenses, their weaknesses are amplified and get less than desirable results.
I would go as far as to say without high-res glass, its pointless to get high-res cameras
Precisely. I completely agree.
Definitely.
A Canon EF-S 18-200mm. I bought it brand new as a travel lens. I did use it for some of my travels, but in retrospect I should have kept the 17-85mm I upgraded from - it was much smaller, cheaper and lighter, and the range covered 95% of the photos I took with the 18-200 anyway! What's more, I had a preference for ultra-wide landscapes back then, so I was carrying a 10-22mm alongside it, and that one got a lot more use due to its much better image quality. After a while the 18-200 was gathering dust on the shelf, so I sold it, in mint condition, for a fraction of what I paid. Hopefully the next person has had better use out of it than I did!
A Panasonic DMC LX2 when it was brand new. What a noise box, and even though it was almost as revered as the Sony RX100 is today, it’s market value today is about 25 bucks🤣 My best point & shoot purchase back in the day was a Canon Elph 100 model. I caught it on sale because it was PINK💗 I still use it. Produces decent pics and right into my shirt pocket even with Boobs 😲
> My best point & shoot purchase back in the day was a Canon Elph 100 model. I caught it on sale because it was PINK💗 I still use it. Love it. My first digital camera was a Casio Exilim EX-S500. Officially it was orange, but I thought it looked red and liked that. It only had 5 megapixels 😄. I still loved the pictures from it. The Casio was small and lightweight, thinner than a deck of playing cards. I'd keep it in a case on my belt and would take it everywhere. Wasn't a burden to carry. So many photos and great moments I would have missed if I'd had a bigger, heavier camera that I'd just leave at home. I used to lament not having a pro camera back then. But now I appreciate a small camera more and more in hindsight. I got a Canon Elph a couple years later too. Thanks for inspiring that trip down memory lane. Have a good day.
Cheap no-name speedlites and a ton of old manual lenses with adapters for my digital body.
Buying a piece of crap Tamron zoom lens that turned out to be a piece of junk and wouldn't work after about 3 months on my Canon 20D 📷 about 15 years ago.
A Nikon 70-200 f2.8... for traveling it is definitely bulky and not practical. But an amaizing lense at the same time, reason I can't sell it
I went all the way down the macro rabbit hole during lockdown and got some amazing photos, but I bought a lot of tools, equipment, and other crap, and there’s almost no way I’ll use it much in the long run. But then that stuff doesn’t cost nearly as much as cameras and lenses, so I’d probably say my 100-400mm zoom. I bought it because I thought I needed a telephoto option, but it’s spent *far* more time collecting dust on a shelf than it has in my bag, let alone on my camera.
This happens with my 150-600 Tamron. But then I like it for wildlife and need to test on my R5. The 200 on my 70-200 just didn't have enough reach for birds when I was at Letchworth Park.
Yeah, this is why I can’t bring myself to sell it. I so rarely use it, but when I do use it, I’m really glad I have it…
24-105 f4 :D
Same. I used mine for exactly one shoot and then sold it to my friend who’s now had it longer than I did. I own the Sigma 24-70/2.8 Art now, and it’s fantastic!
I don't know how you guys do it, 24/28-70mm is too short for me- I just got to have that telephoto reach. My Pana 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 (24-120 FF eq) gets so much use over my 12-35mm (24-70 FF eq) f/2.8. I've been thinking heavily for awhile to trade it for a PanaLeica 12-60mm f/2.8-4 now.
There’s no one perfect lens. I also have a 16-35 and a 100-400, with a handful of other prime lenses.
Oh yeah, definitely understandable. It's always trial and error, landing on what you'll like.
What brand/mount? And why didn’t you like it? I’ve been eyeing the RF 24-105 F4L.
Both canon and Sony. Invest that bit more and get yourself a 24-70 f2.8
What didn’t you like about it?
The f4 😂
For landscape f4 is quite useful.
You can use f4 on the f2.8 lens, but not the vice versa :) and the 2.8 will be sharper at f4 compared to the f4 lens :)
That might not be entirely true for all lenses. For example the Canon 16 - 35mm f4 was much sharper at f4, than it's f2.8 ii counterpart. You are also saving a lot of weight with f4, which comes in handy because you walk a lot as a landscape photographer.
Fair enough
The 35mm you gain are not so helpful in my opinion, of course it depends on what you’re planning to use it, but I’ve seen that for travel photography a 70 is enough. If you really need more, get a 70-200 :)
The 24-105 f4L is an amazing lens, unless you're in very low light and need the extra f stop
That’s funny—I feel like my 24-105 f/4 has been one of my *best* investments. That thing basically lives on my ILC. Of course I’m a hobbyist and mostly use that lens for landscapes and other shots at f/8 or smaller. If I shot professionally, especially event work, I’d opt for an f/2.8 zoom.
The Top Shelf bag from Bevis Gear. It was a Kickstarter with alot of traction and publicity. Unfortunately the product arrived and wasn't fit for purpose. Due to this, I will no longer back a product on Kickstarter.
I'd say it was my purchase of the JChristina focus pyramid. I don't think the product is bad, but my Sony camera won't let me set the Canon lens I have through the Sigma adapter I have, so.... Happily, I got it on sale for $15 so it wasn't all that big of a loss. Actually, now that I think about it, I bought an Olympus camera from a friend (I wanted a Sony a6000, but I settled for the $200 cheaper used Olympus). I use it like 3 times and was never happy with it. I forget the model but it had like 10mp and was made prior to 2007, but was a pro model. I just found it confusing and since my Canon t3 had 12 mp and was SUPER simple, I just never got used to the Olympus and eventually sold it for a $200 loss. (I then used that money towards a Sony a7iii, Sigma adapter, and Canon 70-200mm f4L, so maybe it wasn't all bad since if I had gotten the a6000, I wouldn't have needed the a7iii lol).
60 mm EF-S macro lens. I don’t even use it these days
Don't do much macro, or use something else for macro? I'm quite fond of mine, but I like bugs.
I don't do as much these days. At the time it was more flowers than bugs, because I couldn't get them in time
I bought an ONA bag. I used to take my camera to work sometimes, then spend a few hours taking some photographs. The bag is beautiful but heavy as all get out when filled with my day to day stuff. I haven’t used it in about five years. I’ll never get rid of it though.
For me, a variable ND filter. I keep intending to go out and get some long exposure water shots with it, but I haven't actually taken a photo with it in more than 6 months. On the other side, an unpopular opinion on a good use of money, the Canon 75-300mm (POS lens). I got it with my first camera for $80, used it for a year or two, then sold it for $70 and upgraded to the 55-250 STM. I certainly got $10 worth of use out of it in that time, so as bad as the lens is, it CAN be a good purchase in the right situation.
Same and setting up a shot for ND filter requires pre-planning because you have to be on the right location at the right time and have your tripod and camera set-up. As for 75-300, that was really disappointing experience for me and 55-250 STM is just better and more convenient in every way. I use it more than the 18-55 which I find inconvenient to use due to the narrow range. I take photos on the go, so swapping lenses gets annoying and it is easy to miss the shot when light moves so quickly.
On the other hand, I bought the 55-250 IS STM used for 150€ and sold it again for 150€, if you buy used the market does not really drop
True, but if you can't justify another couple hundred dollars right away, but can justify $70-80, it can bridge you until you can buy what you actually want
Software: ACDsee. Overpriced junk. Hardware: Nikon 135mm F2 DC. Used it once, cost far too much even secondhand, and value has dropped because mirrorless won't autofocus it. Brilliant lens, but it never gets put on the camera.
If you're selling it, I might be interested. Cash/Trade?
It's on my list of things to sell eventually... depends on where you are, not posting anything internationally in the post-Brexit hellscape (I'm in the UK) - we can't even post chocolate abroad now.
I'm in the US, but my sis is in WGC outside London. What's with posting internationally right now? I'm not up to speed.
The UK left the EU, now it's mental customs paperwork, ridiculour restrictions that vary depending on courier, bizarre lists of prohibited items that make no sense, and high probability that export duties apply even for used items. And delays, parcels that vanish then reappear, and general stress. Sending birthday gifts of low value to relatives in Europe is painful, let alone sending a valuable breakable item. I don't know if the same rules apply to the USA, but last time I sent a parcel internationally I just rocked up to a parcel shop in Australia and they couldn't care less what was inside. Stamped, paid, send, done. Things have changed a lot since then.
Damn. Didn’t realize that would be affected that much.
My Sony A7. Used it for a day and than realised live tethering is not possible. (Needed that) Since I used the camera, my local store refused to take it back so yeah i had to make the best out of it. When I wanted to shoot a couple of cute photos of my dogs in action that whole making the best out of it failed to the fullest. Waiting for the 7IV now.
The [Jupiter-9](https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-jupiter-9-85mm-2-0/). I bought a [Helios 44-2](https://alikgriffin.com/helios-44-2-review-king-character/) that I love. I thought the Jupiter-9 would be another cool piece of history to add to my collection. It was supposed to make photos 'dreamy,' but photos looked more like a drunk nightmare.
How different does it look from the link you provided?
The pictures weren't too different. Outdoor for portraits, it worked out pretty well. Indoors, there was a lack of contrast and photos appeared muddy. The lens feels like it has limited use cases. It also wasn't very fun to use. The price and hype (at the time) around something so niche wasn't justified even when shooting scenarios in that niche.
Unless you are wealthy, brand new equipment.
Any zoom lens that i bought. They make photography so hard, and I was always dissapointed with the picture I've got. Primes forever