"Casual lenses" vs "serious lenses"??

[BostonRott]

I'm wondering how many others out there categorize their shooting styles/lenses??

I just sold my 70-300 D to a friend, and now suddenly find myself contemplating the 70-300VR.

I can just hear the discussion with hubby "Why do you need that?? You have the 80-200 AND a 300mm lens. That would be redundant!"

I almost feel a need for 2 sets of lenses.......

a) The "we're going on a family day trip, would like pictures, but don't want the weight/tripod" set

and

b) The "I'm going out to capture subject ABC and I need lenses of XYZ speed/length" set.

Am I being silly?

I keep thinking of things like trips to the zoo, or shooting a sports game if I'm alone with a 2nd younger child tagging along......it would be nice to have VR lenses (18-200, 70-300) that I can just use, "record the shots" and not be focusing on proper technique, tripod use, etc. Events where needing to keep an eye on one child precludes absolute focus on photography.

Do others do this with their lenses/shooting?

 

[Gale]

Well
I have
80-400VR (longer reach with 1.4 TC birds etc) can also use the 500D for close up
300 F4 (just the best lens, and can use hand held at times, can use 1.4 or 1.7 tc) can use 500D for close up(prob best lens in the bag)
70-300VR can use with 1.4 kenko tc(casual runaround) has decent reach if just walk around and slip on the tc. Lighter weight. Good IQ
Also have 24-120VR for goofin around when I know I won't be shooting long
So I have quite a bit of over lap. But depends where I am going and what I am going to shoot.
Sure does not help you much:>)))))

I would not mind having an 18-200 VR and the 105VR

 

[StL_Don]

Gretchen,
It makes sense to me but then I could be just as silly as you.:biggrin:

I picked up the 18-200VR because there's times I don't want to carry around the 17-55 & 70-200.

Don

 

[Dave]

Well I have the 70-300 VR and the 50-150 f/2.8 lens and I still want the 80-200 f/2.8 lens...so I know where you're coming from.

Of course if I get the 80-200 I would probably sell the Sigma 50-150...maybe. :biggrin:

 

[jklofft]

Not at all I bought the 18-200VR for family trip type work even though I have the 17-55 and 70-200. One top of all that I have both a set of serious zooms (12-24, 17-55, 70-200) and a set of serious primes (28 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and 135 f/2). Remember you can never be too rich or have too many lenses

 

[Removed User 3]

Gretchen,
It makes sense to me but then I could be just as silly as you.:biggrin:

I picked up the 18-200VR because there's times I don't want to carry around the 17-55 & 70-200.

Don

Me too but could somebody explain all of this to my wife.....
:smile:

 

[Rich Gibson]

Gretchen,

Not silly at all! I consider my 18-200, and maybe the 12-24 my casual lenses. Everything else has an evolved purpose.

Rich

 

[BostonRott]

Anyway, as to your question, if you can shoot with a 70-300 VR knowing that better glass is sitting at home and then not miss the speed and quality you could have had, then by all means get a 70-300 VR

Myself - couldn't do it

I guess I'm looking at it as "have the shot" vs. "have nothing." Trying to think ahead when we're hopefully blessed with child #2, and we have kids with a minimum of 3yrs between them......one running about (i.e. at a zoo or other public place of interest) and one in a stroller still needing a full diaper bag.

Carrying "serious" equipment (often in my Lowepro backpack) is difficult if you're trying to also wear a non-walking child in backpack while out on a hike, or go on a day trip somewhere and juggle "serious" equipment vs. kids' stuff.

I don't want to give up my "bird" lenses, but feel that maybe a non-pro lens may be helpful for family-type events where I'm the primary parent (while hubby is off at work) but also want to photograph it. I'd rather have a "good" photo (vs an "excellent" one) than none. :smile:

I'm glad there are other silly people out there! :biggrin:

 

[RexRoy]

i guess I AM silly! :biggrin: :wink:

 

[BostonRott]

Who said silly is cheap??? :biggrin: :tongue:

 

[Tosh]

If that's silly, you've got lots of company.

I haven't finalized my choice for a "high end" kit, but I have assembled my casual or light carry kit.
It's based on a D40/18-200vr. I can add a Sigma 30 1.4 or Nikon 105vr for specific shooting conditions.
Casual, but still incredibly capable IMHO.
In fact, truth be told, it's all I probably really need.

 

[BostonRott]

Very nice Glenn!

When I look at what I shoot most, currently, it is "snap" stuff of Emilie while out on hikes, adventures, etc.

It's wonderful to have high end glass (i.e. for the National dog event that I was asked to photograph), and I certainly don't see it sitting around gathering dust any time soon ... but I do think a few lighter VR zooms may bring me even more "snap" opportunities, if for nothing else than hand-hold-ability. :biggrin:

 

[davidzvi]

Am I being silly?

Not silly at all, think about it in terms of how many of us have more than one camera or even camera bag? I plan on getting 70-300 VR as well. Now I no longer have that 80-400 you tried on our outting, but eventually I'll have one of those again or the 300 f4 and a 1.4tc to go with it.

But I might second the 18-200 over the 70-300. Leave that mounted on you D70 in a nice small on the run bag and you're all set.

Of course if I get the 80-200 I would probably sell the Sigma 50-150...maybe. :biggrin:

If you do you know were to find me.:wink:

 

[ShaunK]

After recently purchasing the 50 1.4, 17-55, and 70-200, I came to the realization that I can't afford "casual". So I sold the 70-300, and am contemplating selling the 18-70, but after I make sure I don't need it as a back up! My saving grace is that I am still young, and I don't mind carrying the extra weight. Now I'm contemplating a second body to hand that second lens from to keep from switching all around. So, no, I don't have "casual" vs. "serious" lenses. But if I could afford it, I would!!! :biggrin:

 

[Clix Pix]

Gretchen, you are a girl after my own heart!! Yep, I've got "serious" lenses and I've got "casual" lenses, and I've got lenses that are for this situation and that situation, etc.... with indeed some overlap.

When I bought the 180mm a year and a half or so ago, the sales associate asked, "but why do you want this lens? You've already got the 70-200mm VR and the 18-200mm VR!" I said, "because there are times when I want something lighter weight and yet fast and long, something which will fit more easily into my Domke bag. " I had a specific situation coming up for which I knew that lens would be a better solution than either of the other two, and indeed it proved to be. A few months later when I was back in that same store asking to see the 200mm f/2, the same salesman asked, "but why do you want THIS lens? You've got the 200 range really covered already, with the 18-200mm VR, the 70-200mm VR and that 180! You wanted a lighter weight lens with that 180, but this lens here is HEAVY!" He stared at me, puzzled as I happily pretend-shot with the 200mm f/2 and handed over my credit card. "Because this lens has qualities that neither of the others does...." I said. Bertha came home with me....

As it happened I bought the 300mm f/2.8 at a different store, otherwise I know I probably would've had the same quizzical stare and questions: "why do you want THIS lens? You've already got the 300mm f/4!" Ditto when I bought the 70-300mm VR....

A lot of times I like to walk around the lake here and take a fairly longish lens. I've never taken the 300mm VR out on those walks -- usually the 80-400mm VR, 70-300mm VR or the 300mm f/4 go with me. Sometimes I will take the 70-200mm VR or the 180mm when the light isn't really good. Last week we had our first crop of goslings. I went out there with the Tamron 200-500mm on the monopod because I knew that the parents weren't going to let me get too close. Next day I tried the 80-400mm and moved in a little closer, and the following day I used the 70-300mm, returning again in the late afternoon with the 70-200mm VR. The geese are letting me get closer now, and I think they realize that even though I"m holding some strange black thing that goes click-click-click-click that I am harmless. Next time I go out I will try my luck with the 180mm, see how well I can do with it.... :smile:

Point being that, yes, I like having options and being able to pick a particular lens to fit a particular situation. If I'm going out birding with fellow photographers, the 300mm VR is the lens of choice; if I'm going to the zoo, the 70-300mm VR will be the lens of choice.... If I'm taking a trip somewhere and am flying, the first lens in the bag will be the 18-200mm.
You have to consider the situation, the purpose of the expedition, the logistics, and the purpose of the photographs you'll be shooting....

 

[genehsu]

I'll try to sum up this thread in one question: why do you need another golf club? :actions1:

In other words, I don't think you're being silly. I have "walkaround/hiking/general purpose," "indoor/sports," and "macro" as my categories of lenses. If I were a serious birder, that'd be another category with another lens or two.

 

[Rich Gibson]

Funny you use that remark. At the April 2007 Alabama get-together we had a drawing for door prizes. I selected (temproarily it turns out) a big Lowepro camera bag. As I returned to my seat and my wife Carolyn saw what I had picked out she cried out "Not ANOTHER bag!"

:redface:

 

[italy74]

Wow Boston,
I guess you touched a hot topic! It's not silly at all, and mainly, at least to me, I agree for the weight matter. As Ed, I'm also going to shoot mostly with primes or with the prime-zoom 17-35. Probably, I'm "evolving" (?), being able to understand my real needings before a shooting opportunity. Last night, I went to a concert with just the 50 F1.4. Another time, I coupled the D200 with the 85.. For tele shots, not to lug around the 70/200, much more useful for sport shots, I decide from time to time between the 90 F2.8 or the 105 F2 but I (think I) need something lighter and longer. Maybe just the 180. Maybe it's stupid. But yes, I share your feeling. And even if I have a very good walkaround, the Tamron 28-75, sharp and great, I'm still discovering using it less and less. Not for any problem, but just for "fixed primes disease" I guess.

Or, maybe, it's because even the F2.8 looks more reductive day by day.. hope not to become a "measurbator" or whatever you call it. Being always more involved in local social events, I always need more.

All the best

Ops I forgot to mention that next zoom, if any, could be the famous 24-120 F2.8 VR expected with new D3...