What's Would You Keep? [The anti-G.A.S. thread]

[Don Haines]

This would be a pretty easy decision for me. Sell off the 60d/Tamron 17-50 combo and the 90 macro if I really had to. That leaves me with the 5D3, 24-105, 70-200 and 150-600 and still very happy

For me, the ideal FF kit would be the 5D3, 24-70F4IS, 70-200F4IS (quality and portability) and the Tamron 150-600 for that extra reach.... and if I could, the 100L macro lens....

1DX's and the big whites, while absolutely wonderful, don't fit my portability needs nor my budget.

 

[Roo]

This would be a pretty easy decision for me. Sell off the 60d/Tamron 17-50 combo and the 90 macro if I really had to. That leaves me with the 5D3, 24-105, 70-200 and 150-600 and still very happy

For me, the ideal FF kit would be the 5D3, 24-70F4IS, 70-200F4IS (quality and portability) and the Tamron 150-600 for that extra reach.... and if I could, the 100L macro lens....

1DX's and the big whites, while absolutely wonderful, don't fit my portability needs nor my budget.

I like your thinking Don but I already have the 70-200 f2.8ii which I think prefer to keep as I've just started shooting some ice hockey. Theoretically I'd sell the gear I mentioned plus the 24-105 and get the 24-70

 

[Don Haines]

This would be a pretty easy decision for me. Sell off the 60d/Tamron 17-50 combo and the 90 macro if I really had to. That leaves me with the 5D3, 24-105, 70-200 and 150-600 and still very happy

For me, the ideal FF kit would be the 5D3, 24-70F4IS, 70-200F4IS (quality and portability) and the Tamron 150-600 for that extra reach.... and if I could, the 100L macro lens....

1DX's and the big whites, while absolutely wonderful, don't fit my portability needs nor my budget.

I like your thinking Don but I already have the 70-200 f2.8ii which I think prefer to keep as I've just started shooting some ice hockey. Theoretically I'd sell the gear I mentioned plus the 24-105 and get the 24-70

If I wasn't worried about portability, it would be the 70-200F2.8IS too...

 

[mrsfotografie]

Damn this thread has gotten me to think about the 300 f/2.8 L IS II again

 

[jdramirez]

Damn this thread has gotten me to think about the 300 f/2.8 L IS II again

Want to go halfsies?

 

[mrsfotografie]

Damn this thread has gotten me to think about the 300 f/2.8 L IS II again

Want to go halfsies?

No-- full swing 8) ??? : :-[

erhhh :-[

 

[Dylan777]

Damn this thread has gotten me to think about the 300 f/2.8 L IS II again

The solution is buy it and be done with ;D

 

[gwflauto]

This thread made me think. I have a similar problem. Because of weigt and size restriction on an extensive trip, I can take only a small part of my gear. Not that I plan to sell my gear, but I have to decide, which piece to take on this trip of 8 to 10 months. Birds, wildlife, flowers, portrait, landscape. What do I need, that will fit with my needs and my luggage constraints at the same time.

1 body = 6D
1 lens : EF 100 / 2,8 IS L ;
2 lenses : EF 100/2,8 IS L , EF 24-70/4 IS L
3 lenses: EF 100/2,8 IS L, EF 24-70/4 IS L,EF 70-200/2,8 IS II, Tamron 150-600/5-6,3
4 lenses: EF 100/2,8 IS L, EF 24-70/4 IS L, EF 14/2,8 L, Tamron 150-600/5-6,3
1 Accessory: Tripod RRS TVC 24 L

I may decide to take the EF 16-35/4 IS L rather than the EF 24-70/4 IS L.

 

[mackguyver]

Damn this thread has gotten me to think about the 300 f/2.8 L IS II again

The solution is buy it and be done with ;D

That didn't go so well for you (with the 300mm), did it? It ended well, though expensively, if I recall ;D

 

[Eldar]

This a bit like; We´re gonna chop off all your limbs but 2 (or 3 or 4), which ones will you keep? By the way, in this case eyes, ears, nose and throat counts as limbs ... :

 

[mackguyver]

This a bit like; We´re gonna chop off all your limbs but 2 (or 3 or 4), which ones will you keep? By the way, in this case eyes, ears, nose and throat counts as limbs ... :

I know, it's a rough one and I won't get into my reasoning behind the thread, but it goes back to what I do for a living which involves constantly planning for (and dealing with) worst-case scenarios.

For me, it's actually impossible to do this in reality, because what I shoot changes constantly and I have no specialty. I may shoot nothing but macro for months, then shoot sports, wildlife, and real estate all in one day. So my necessary gear list changes from one shoot to the next. I really envy people who have a specialty - if you take all of the money I have tied up in gear, I could have the dream set of gear for a single specialty - though I have a lot of great gear, so I'm not going to complain

I'm enjoying all of the replies - keep 'em coming.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

If I really HAD to get rid of almost everything then I would keep my 1DX and 800 F5.6 L, if I was allowed I would also keep my 24-105 (which I use occasionally) - the 1DX is virtually glued to the 800!

Dam...bird shooter ;D

Not just birds! Any wildlife really + landscapes (24-105).
A friend of mine is currently doing a very interesting landscape series with his 600 F4 and 1D4 - I might copy his idea! These very long lenses give a distinctly different perspective for landscapes but are not very portable - unfortunately so subjects have to be chosen carefully!

 

[sdsr]

I like my GAS - it pushes creativity too; especially when it comes to old MF lenses that I adapt to my NEX body. In fact that part of my GAS is quite easy to afford.... and thankfully it keeps me from buying more L lenses.

I quite agree. I'm lucky enough not to be a professional photographer and thus to the extent I have "needs" and "essentials" they're merely want-driven and thus arguably not really needs at all. As you say, old MF lenses provide a cheap, engaging adventure, often with superb results too.

If I hadn't started using mirrorless cameras 18 months ago, it would have been rather easy:

6D or 5DIII w 16-35mm f4 + 70-300L + 100mm L + a fast 50mm (Sigma Art, I guess).

That said, if stayed with dslrs and really had to cut back, I could do quite well with merely:

SL1 + Canon 10-18 + the latest Sigma 18-250 macro - a surprisingly good combination that together costs less than just about any L lens by itself

But the more I use mirrorless bodies the more dslrs feel obsolete to me (I was using my 5DIII outside for the first time in ages yesterday and, aside from being far less useful, it felt like so much pointless ballast). But I'll keep one, if only so I can easily use my 70-300L.

Otherwise, until Canon comes up with a decent mirrorless camera I would pick:

Sony A7r w Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 (much of the time I could probably stop right there) + a wide zoom (the impending Sony perhaps, or the Canon 16-35 f4, so I can use the lens on the 6D/5DIII) + Canon 100L + a few favorite cheap vintage fast primes (which oddly seem far less obsolete to me than dslrs)

or even, if I wanted to minimize weight/bulk

Olympus OM-D w a few Olympus & MF fast primes + Panasonic 100-300

 

[sagittariansrock]

Damn this thread has gotten me to think about the 300 f/2.8 L IS II again

Hmm... I wonder if this should still be called the anti-G.A.S. thread any longer...

 

[Sporgon]

5DII + 50 f1.4. Yes I'm that old fashioned. If I want wider I stitch. If I want longer I crop. If I want more resolution I laugh.

 

[mrsfotografie]

As you say, old MF lenses provide a cheap, engaging adventure, often with superb results too.

I like the way you put it, and it's so true. I picked up a Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO the other day that gives stunning results on my NEX, both with a Metabones Speed Booster and without. It's strange to say, and unexpected for a Sigma, but optically that lens is in 'L' territory. Maybe that's why it (deservedly) carries a red stripe.

 

[sdsr]

As you say, old MF lenses provide a cheap, engaging adventure, often with superb results too.

I like the way you put it, and it's so true. I picked up a Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO the other day that gives stunning results on my NEX, both with a Metabones Speed Booster and without. It's strange to say, and unexpected for a Sigma, but optically that lens is in 'L' territory. Maybe that's why it (deservedly) carries a red stripe.

Thanks for the tip! So far my dabbling in old MF lenses has been limited to primes, so that might be fun to try.

 

[Eldar]

Seriously, and this is rather difficult, I would go with the 1DX and 24-70 f2.8L II first. Next lens would be the 600 f4L IS II. Then 70-200 f2.8L IS II and then Zeiss 21mm f2.8. But the dilemma sounds more like a nightmare than anything else ...

 

[slclick]

Seriously, and this is rather difficult, I would go with the 1DX and 24-70 f2.8L II first. Next lens would be the 600 f4L IS II. Then 70-200 f2.8L IS II and then Zeiss 21mm f2.8. But the dilemma sounds more like a nightmare than anything else ...

Really? No Otus?

 

[Eldar]

Seriously, and this is rather difficult, I would go with the 1DX and 24-70 f2.8L II first. Next lens would be the 600 f4L IS II. Then 70-200 f2.8L IS II and then Zeiss 21mm f2.8. But the dilemma sounds more like a nightmare than anything else ...

Really? No Otus?

Tough one ... In the limb metaphor ... to choose between arms, legs, eyes, ears ... Not easy. Whatever you chose it would be wrong ... Unless you could keep them all