Pfreddee
Well-known
I have been wondering what is the point that you become "heavily invested in glass", as in owning whatever number would more or less compel you to stay with a particular brand willy-nilly, unless you wanted to take a bath moving to another system.
For instance, I have a Nikon D7000 and two lenses for it. Of course, that doesn't count as a big investment in lenses, and I could easily move to another system. But I'm curious what the range would be to make one hesitate to change from one system to another.
Thank you to all who reply.
With best regards,
Pfreddee(Stephen)
For instance, I have a Nikon D7000 and two lenses for it. Of course, that doesn't count as a big investment in lenses, and I could easily move to another system. But I'm curious what the range would be to make one hesitate to change from one system to another.
Thank you to all who reply.
With best regards,
Pfreddee(Stephen)
farlymac
PF McFarland
I didn't let a little thing like that hold me back, Stephen. Quite the opposite. Every time I was either given another brand of camera body, or somehow wound up with one in an auction lot buy, I tried to kit out the system as much as possible because there are so many good lenses out there.
That's how I came to own lenses in Nikon, Minolta, Yashica/Contax, Canon, Olympus, and Pentax K SLR mounts.
PF
That's how I came to own lenses in Nikon, Minolta, Yashica/Contax, Canon, Olympus, and Pentax K SLR mounts.
PF
YYV_146
Well-known
At one point in life I had some ~$8,000 in Canon lenses. Now I own exactly zero Canon lenses. I think there is really no such thing as being "too" invested. Lenses usually have pretty good resale value, and if you want a specific feature badly enough, you'll find a way to make the change.
A bigger problem is when there's a particular lens someone wants that can't be found in another mount. The Canon 17mm TS-E and the Nikon 135mm F2 DC are good examples. The Sony STF is an imperfect substitute to the latter but still quite different, and for the Canon there is exactly zero substitutes in the 135mm realm.
A bigger problem is when there's a particular lens someone wants that can't be found in another mount. The Canon 17mm TS-E and the Nikon 135mm F2 DC are good examples. The Sony STF is an imperfect substitute to the latter but still quite different, and for the Canon there is exactly zero substitutes in the 135mm realm.
zuiko85
Veteran
Doesn't have to be new stuff. I have taken some years to collect up a lens set for my Olympus Pen F. I have the 20 f3.5, 25 f4, 38 f1.8 and 100 f3.5. It is not too hard to find the 38 and 100 but the 20 is harder to source and fairly expensive in good shape and even the 25 can be over $100 depending on condition. In my income bracket this is a heavy investment. I would not have the money to replace them if lost or stolen. So I guess I can say, (for my income) I am heavily invested in glass. One good thing, if I ever decide to pick up a micro 4:3 camera, like a E PL1 which can be had used for less than $100, with a adapter I can use the Pen lenses on it also.
Gregm61
Well-known
I count two systems I would term as "heavily invested"
Olympus E-M1 and the three f2.8 zooms (7-14, 12-40 and 40-150) for a total of over $4,000, and that's the "cheap" system.
Then, you get to the "really invested". Two Leica M9's, both bought used, a new M262 I should receive tomorrow, 5 Leica lenses, 21/2.8 ASPH, 35mm f2 ASPH, 50mm f2, 90mm f2 Summicrons and 135mm f4 Tele Elmar, and just for kicks, a Cosina Voigtlander 21mm f1.8.
Oh, and throw in two film M's with an M4 and M6.
For me, that's really heavily invested, and I stayed away from the really exotic stuff.
Olympus E-M1 and the three f2.8 zooms (7-14, 12-40 and 40-150) for a total of over $4,000, and that's the "cheap" system.
Then, you get to the "really invested". Two Leica M9's, both bought used, a new M262 I should receive tomorrow, 5 Leica lenses, 21/2.8 ASPH, 35mm f2 ASPH, 50mm f2, 90mm f2 Summicrons and 135mm f4 Tele Elmar, and just for kicks, a Cosina Voigtlander 21mm f1.8.
Oh, and throw in two film M's with an M4 and M6.
For me, that's really heavily invested, and I stayed away from the really exotic stuff.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
How about owning just a single lens, like a 0.95 Noctilux?
Gregm61
Well-known
That'd do it for me, too, LOL....
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
With 23 Nikkors from 15mm to 400, and around 17 in Leica M and 3 in LTM, I think I may be in the "too heavily invested to switch" camp. Oh, yeah, seven Hasselblad lenses. I don't know, it just accumulates.
narsuitus
Well-known
I thought I was so heavily invested in Nikon glass (over 32 lenses from 14mm to 1000mm) that I would never abandon the Nikon system. However, I have been so dissatisfied with Nikon's new "G" and "E" lenses that I have stopped buying Nikon lenses and started buying Zeiss, Fujinon, and Rokinon lenses.
pvdhaar
Peter
I sold all the Nikon stuff I had to go mirrorless.. That is, minus the 35-70 and the SB800, as I thought that what I could get for it wasn't what they were really worth. Switching back to DSLR again last year, it was those two items that made me go with Nikon again.. Even if I had just kept the SB-800, it would have been the same choice..
mfogiel
Veteran
How about 14 lenses for Hasselblad?
michaelwj
----------------
And I didn't even know there were that many! How many left for the full set?
rscheffler
Well-known
I have a pretty significant collection of Canon EF lenses, including all of the TS-Es, a couple super-teles, some of the fast primes, the typical L zooms...
I shoot a mixed bag of things, so the range of lenses does get used. The rather extensive collection does add inertia to the likelihood of switching to another DSLR or a contemporary mirrorless system. I guess I could pretty much duplicate it with Nikon but what's the point? The cameras all do pretty much the same things (relative to what I need). It would just be putting money in the manufacturers' pockets to flip systems without much, if any, gain for myself. The other roadblock at the moment is none of the mirrorless systems have complete lens lines (based on my needs). And even if they had the lenses, current mirrorless AF performance trails DSLRs in respect to sports/action photography... otherwise I could just throw an adapter on my Canon glass and use it on Sony.
And then there is my growing M lens collection. I see it different from the Canon glass. Being strictly mechanical it should port to most future mirrorless systems that might interest me (though there might be some image quality tradeoffs, as already seen with some M lenses on Sony cameras). Therefore there's not much current incentive for me to dump it for something else that will be more restrictive in respect to cross-brand/system compatibility.
I shoot a mixed bag of things, so the range of lenses does get used. The rather extensive collection does add inertia to the likelihood of switching to another DSLR or a contemporary mirrorless system. I guess I could pretty much duplicate it with Nikon but what's the point? The cameras all do pretty much the same things (relative to what I need). It would just be putting money in the manufacturers' pockets to flip systems without much, if any, gain for myself. The other roadblock at the moment is none of the mirrorless systems have complete lens lines (based on my needs). And even if they had the lenses, current mirrorless AF performance trails DSLRs in respect to sports/action photography... otherwise I could just throw an adapter on my Canon glass and use it on Sony.
And then there is my growing M lens collection. I see it different from the Canon glass. Being strictly mechanical it should port to most future mirrorless systems that might interest me (though there might be some image quality tradeoffs, as already seen with some M lenses on Sony cameras). Therefore there's not much current incentive for me to dump it for something else that will be more restrictive in respect to cross-brand/system compatibility.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
two lenses can perfectly mean a heavy investment in glass, it only depends on youtr budget for photography versus the price of those two lenses...
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
How to tell if you have problem (10 possible responses) . . drum roll please:
1) if you could sell your lenses and put a down payment on a house, you are "heavily invested in glass."
2) if you choose glass over food as a monthly expense you are "heavily invested in glass."
3) if you think there is a US Recommended Daily Allowance of Thorium, you are "heavily invested in glass."
4) if someone asks you how many lenses you own and your answer is "I don't really know, " or "it depends" . . . you are "heavily invested in glass."
5) If you have ever had to build furniture or move houses to accommodate your lens collection, you are "heavily invested in glass."
6) If you think Berkshire-Hathaway is a junky stock because it doesn't own any lenses, you may or may not be "heavily invested in glass," but you definitely have a problem.
7) if you refer to lenses as "glass," you are probably "heavily invested in glass."
8) If you have ever rented an exotic lens from Lensrental.com rather than just purchasing the darn thing, you might not be "heavily invested in glass," but if you then turn around and offer to purchase your rental unit you probably are.
9) if you tell your spouse/partner/lover/dog that you can stop buying lenses any time you want to, you are are "heavily invested in glass."
10) if you think the world cares what lens your picture was taken with, you probably are just an average RFF member. We are nuts. We know it. And I couldn't tell you how many lenses I own. . .
typed while grinning,
Ben
[Edit: if you think it isn't worth selling your Pentax screw-mount lenses, your Hexanons, or Sears-branded wide angle because the paltry sum you would realize is not worth doing without these classic over-achievers you are probably (sigh) "heavily invested in glass." And I can stop ANY time I want to.
]
1) if you could sell your lenses and put a down payment on a house, you are "heavily invested in glass."
2) if you choose glass over food as a monthly expense you are "heavily invested in glass."
3) if you think there is a US Recommended Daily Allowance of Thorium, you are "heavily invested in glass."
4) if someone asks you how many lenses you own and your answer is "I don't really know, " or "it depends" . . . you are "heavily invested in glass."
5) If you have ever had to build furniture or move houses to accommodate your lens collection, you are "heavily invested in glass."
6) If you think Berkshire-Hathaway is a junky stock because it doesn't own any lenses, you may or may not be "heavily invested in glass," but you definitely have a problem.
7) if you refer to lenses as "glass," you are probably "heavily invested in glass."
8) If you have ever rented an exotic lens from Lensrental.com rather than just purchasing the darn thing, you might not be "heavily invested in glass," but if you then turn around and offer to purchase your rental unit you probably are.
9) if you tell your spouse/partner/lover/dog that you can stop buying lenses any time you want to, you are are "heavily invested in glass."
10) if you think the world cares what lens your picture was taken with, you probably are just an average RFF member. We are nuts. We know it. And I couldn't tell you how many lenses I own. . .
typed while grinning,
Ben
[Edit: if you think it isn't worth selling your Pentax screw-mount lenses, your Hexanons, or Sears-branded wide angle because the paltry sum you would realize is not worth doing without these classic over-achievers you are probably (sigh) "heavily invested in glass." And I can stop ANY time I want to.
]
mfogiel
Veteran
I am missing the 500, the 35, the 40 (sold) the 135 macro ( had it but sold it) and the zooms ( had one but sold it too).
J
jojoman2
Guest
owning two leica lenses (for me that's a heavy investment)
I think "heavily invested in glass" means that you have issues letting go of stuff... hoarder types?
J
jojoman2
Guest
I think "heavily invested in glass" means that you have issues letting go of stuff... hoarder types?
hahah I thiknk my uncle definitely falls into this category... He has a few M bodies that jammed up at one point or another and a million pre asph lenses, from what I can tell.
ferider
Veteran
Let me refine this:
4) if someone asks you how many 50mm lenses you own and your answer is "I don't really know" ... you are "heavily invested in glass."