Lens Envy: The long and the short of it. Do we all need to have long lenses? I don't know, but I do (or at least I feel better able to cover any prospective angle that I prefer with them). I've also always been obsessed with photography, so apparently bigger lenses were inevitable and unavoidable for me. :)
I use long telephotos to compress scenes and pull in distant scenes that I could not otherwise reach because it would be physically impossible to get closer to my subjects. Shorter lenses are easier for me to work with if I can use them instead and make them work with my intended composition. I often look at a subject and can picture where I need to be and about what focal length that I will need to shoot it from there. But sometimes that puts me in the middle of a lake or in the trees. Or on the other side of a wall. I also think about how that will render the background and foreground in relation to the subject when another focal length will get me nearly the same thing, or with different depth of field. This probably has more to do with an individual's shooting style than anything else. If you see that picture in your mind of what you really want, but you can't compose it that way with your lenses or by changing perspectives, then you may be progressing beyond your current photographic style or beyond your current equipment (or budget!). If I think I would like to experiment with a focal length that I don't own, I usually borrow or rent a lens to use. That way I get the shot I wanted and I can look at it and compare and decide afterward if I really want to shoot like that all of the time. Sometimes what I thought was really neat doesn't do much for me after I shot that angle or I 'got the shot'. In that situation, I'm glad I didn't 'sell the farm' to cover a lens that I will use twice a year and wish I never owned. If I have to buy, I always look at good used gear first, and usually go that route. How can we all justify the expense of the mondo-telephoto lens collection? I'm not sure that any of us really can. It's kind of like a $10,000 boat to fish out of or a $2000 watch. And then there are teleconverters for those occasional long shots. Good brand name (Nikon, Canon) ones are sharp and much easier to carry and afford than a bazooka in a trunk case. On an airplane. What fun is a huge lens if you hate using it? Trying to impress your friends? You can buy a new car or a diamond large enough to choke a horse for the price of some of these lenses today. I try to justify some of my long glass because I am a photographer, but I am a studio photographer and I usually don't even use 35mm for my work. And I certainly wouldn't need a focal length that long in a larger format (probably and hopefully!). So why do I have this stuff? Must be a combination of the results I get with it, the enjoyment of using the equipment, and being able to afford it. I can't think of another excuse. When I can't think of any excuses at all, I sell those lenses. I'm not a sports shooter; I am not required to own big lenses. And I'm certainly not required to wipe out my finances for the sake of a hobby. And this is one expensive damn hobby. Possibly the enjoyment is the justification. Something that you can only justify for yourself. Currently I see no reason for me to own anything longer than my 300 2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter getting me to 420mm at f 4.0. I miss my 500 4.0 P, but I missed my money more. When I feel like I'm 'in a rut', I get out my 20 and 24mm lenses and look for challenges in the opposite directions. Being limited by your equipment is not desirable, but limiting yourself is worse, and there is no excuse for that. Having owned and used just about every practical focal length lens, I have learned that it is more important to be able to see first and then photograph, than it is to photograph and then see what I got later. Dave Cohen Photographer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog -> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects -> Web Site: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs
