Philosophically, how much is too much to spend on a lens?

[Vickko]

Philosophically, how much is too much to spend on a lens?

$5K? $7K ...?

I recall one person say "my camera-bag is worth more than my car". If the camera-bag contains a Leica M9, a Noctilux and a few other Summiluxes, it is easily 5-digits of value.

Oh man, if you were to forget the bag on the subway.

....Vick

 

[loneranger]

Depends on what kind of lens, I am sure there are certain space telescope lenses that are worth more than a million bucks.

 

[ferider]

Too much when you cann't easily replace it. Meaning when you buy an M9, budget for two at least, etc.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Philosophically, how much is too much to spend on a lens?

Philosophically? When you become more concerned with protecting the lens than using it.

 

[kdemas]

I think the answer to that varies wildly depending on the person and their circumstances/needs. For me personally, when times are good I don't think twice about getting a Noct or similarly priced lens. When times are not as good, they tend to leave my house and go to other homes 🙂

If you're a pro the idea of "what's reasonable" can be quite different. Buying a $20k+ piece of equipment as a pro (like a Leica S2) is far different from a hobbyist and their thought process around buying the same piece of equipment.

Anyway, interesting question.

 

[Vickko]

Hmmm.

I remember my mom saying "Don't spend more than half of what you have".

....Vick

Too much when you cann't easily replace it. Meaning when you buy an M9, budget for two at least, etc.

 

[kdemas]

Philosophically? When you become more concerned with protecting the lens than using it.

Excellent point!

 

[Pablito]

You could ask at what price point does any piece of photo equipment become a vanity purchase. The answer probably depends on a number of factors...

I tend to be opinionated so please, no one take offense, but the way I see it the Noctilux is ALWAYS a vanity purchase, NEVER necessary for any assignment, and the pictures it takes are easily accomplished with an f 1.4 lens OR mannered to the point of being visually grotesque. So I would not buy this lens at a fraction of the price yet the price makes it philosophically obscene - for me.

 

[johannielscom]

Hmmm.

I remember my mom saying "Don't spend more than half of what you have".

....Vick

😀

I should have listened better to your mom!

 

[back alley]

it's not about what a lens costs
it's about what i can afford...

as a hobbyist do i really need a $2500 lens? not really...however if i made twice as much money as i do now, then it would be very different for me and i just might pay that kind of money.

 

[doolittle]

Too much, is when the lens starts owning you 🙂

 

[yanidel]

Philosophically? When you become more concerned with protecting the lens than using it.

I think it is pretty much spot on. I would be pretty pissed off to lose or break a $3000 lens, but financially it would not be the end of the world. More than that, I would be worried and it would take away from my pleasure of shooting.

 

[Fujitsu]

To much, is when the lens starts owning you 🙂

LOL






(no text below this line)
--------------------------

 

[robbeiflex]

As with many interesting questions, the answer is "it depends". Personally, as a hobbyist the lines are set in a very subjective way. My own off the wall philosophical answer is that there is no way I would spend any more than would make me feel guilty for not having spent it on my bike(s) instead.

 

[degruyl]

Used, I go up to $1.5K. And that is stretching it. But I do not even like most of the specialty lenses out there. I like moderately fast wide-normals, and they are dirt common, and relatively inexpensive.

For other people, it is entirely different.

 

[benlees]

I've never spent more than $500 on a body or a lens. Will I in the future? Who knows? I can afford to spend more but I have other priorities. One thing that always lingers in the back of my head is diminishing returns. I like a quality kit but at some point I know that spending more is not going to get more. This is a line that is personal, obviously.

I don't like to worry about equipment, either!

 

[MCTuomey]

can't say philosophically. i don't think too well, so i don't say too much.

i do know when a lens is too expensive. that would be when i don't have the money to buy it.

 

[Vickko]

Ha ha.

No way I could afford a second copy of each item.

The only one I bought "new" was the f1 Noctilux. Everything else was used.

Some, I feel I paid too much.

But, I'm suffering a current bout of GAS, and dreaming about new Leica lenses. Too expensive.

....Vick

 

[aizan]

my math indicates an inverse relation between the maximum price and the number of lenses you currently own, or as a percentage of monthly discretionary income around 300-600%.

 

[Bingley]

I read somewhere -- on Dante Stella's website, perhaps -- that you shouldn't spend more than a monthly car payment on a lens. That struck me as sensible advice for an amateur like myself, and I've followed it. It also incorporates the affordability principle that joe alluded to.