I feel like I'm missing something

[nerwin]

Even though I seem to have a well rounded kit with the 16-35, 50 1.8 and 70-200, I still feel like I'm missing something. It just feels incomplete to me, you know?

I love the 16-35, it's a great wide angle zoom. But it's not as versatile as I thought it would be. I think of this lens as two primes in one, 16mm & 35mm because I rarely shoot in between unless I'm making a composition adjustment and can't physically move or simply just cropping in camera. The thing is, at 35mm isn't all that impressive. Its usable yes, but it's NOTHING like a 35mm prime.

Logic tells me a 24-70 2.8 would be better suited for what I like but I don't care for the size and weight of that lens. It's just not for me, I like the weight and size of my 16-35. I can see easily traveling with that lens.

I've considered ditching that lens and replacing it with the fast 20 1.8G but 16mm vs 20mm is quite a big difference on full frame. But I could add a 14 2.8 manual focus later for not much money. Then I could pick up the 35 f/2D that I loved and miss. But I honestly, don't think this is it.

I have the 50mm, its cheap and it's awesome. I don't see the point in getting rid of it. I love that 50mm field of view but the problem is it doesn't focus close enough for my liking. I LOVED shooting with the 35 1.8 on DX because it gave me that 50mm equivalent field of view, but could focus down to 1:4 which made it very useful for a lot of different subjects.

So I was thinking about the 60 f/2.8G because it's a macro lens and that might allow me to capture similar images I was able to do when I had 35mm on DX and I possibly might use more than the 105 2.8 VR I had previously. I thought the 105 was fantastic, BUT the problem I had was that it would isolate the subject too much for my liking. I learned that I wasn't interested in taking pictures of bugs or other really small objects where you need the working distance, so I got rid of it. Just wasn't for me.

Even if I was to buy the 60mm, I'm not 100% sure that's why I'm feeling like something is missing in my kit. I mean it would probably be fun to have anyways.

When I had the Fuji X100, I LOVED that camera and that was basically a fixed 35mm f/2. I had fun with that camera. But the camera was a bit quirky at times and low ISO performance wasn't all that amazing so that's why I sold it.

I've been considering getting the X100s but what's the point? I really prefered the raw images from the FinePix sensor, it was vastly different than the X-Trans sensor and I'm sorry, but I'm not a fan of the X-Trans sensor. So Fuji is out of the question for me. The only great thing about is that's more portable and easier to carry around when I don't want to use my DSLR. But you know..my Galaxy S7 has a well capable camera for that purpose. So maybe buying a secondary travel camera isn't the answer.

I have no idea. Haha. Maybe I should pick up the 35 f/2D and ditch the 50 1.8G and replace it with the 60 2.8G?

I really enjoy shooting with primes because they just make me think more. Which is why I thought about ditching the 16-35 and getting the 20 1.8. But it would probably be stupid because 16mm is nice to have.

If you had the same kit as me (16-35, 50, 70-200) what would you add? I know...I know..its very subjective. But humour me.

 

[fmw]

You get the blue ribbon for your equipment revolving door.

 

[nerwin]

You get the blue ribbon for your equipment revolving door.

YES! Another achievement in the books!

 

[idcanyon]

Might you have Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

I buy new stuff whenever I have something a really want to shoot but can't. So what do you want to shoot but can't with the kit you have? It sounds like macro might qualify, so keep what you have an add a macro lens. If it overlaps and you find you aren't using something anymore than sell it.

If you had the same kit as me (16-35, 50, 70-200) what would you add? I know...I know..its very subjective. But humour me.

For myself, I'd add a 500mm lens plus 2x teleconverter, or maybe a decent telescope because I'm getting ready for the upcoming eclipse....something I want to shoot but can't without new gear (or couldn't, ha ha!).

 

[nerwin]

Might you have Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

I buy new stuff whenever I have something a really want to shoot but can't. So what do you want to shoot but can't with the kit you have? It sounds like macro might qualify, so keep what you have an add a macro lens. If it overlaps and you find you aren't using something anymore than sell it.

If you had the same kit as me (16-35, 50, 70-200) what would you add? I know...I know..its very subjective. But humour me.

For myself, I'd add a 500mm lens plus 2x teleconverter, or maybe a decent telescope because I'm getting ready for the upcoming eclipse....something I want to shoot but can't without new gear (or couldn't, ha ha!).

Oh there is no question. I have G.A.S. But I honestly don't care anymore. It may sound silly. But if buying something new and different that I never had before gives me an ounce of happiness and something new to try in my life, Its worth it me. You know? I've been in a funk lately and maybe a new lens or something is enough to get me back out there.

I'm leaning toward the 60mm macro I think. Even if people think its useless on full frame.

 

[jcdeboever]

I think it depends. I use 16mm for landscape, tractors, trucks. 23mm for cars and street, 18-55 for anything / travel, 60mmacro for macro and portraits, 55-200 anything / travel, 100-400 w/tc for sports/wildlife. I recently ordered 50-140 2.8 for portraits and event shooting in low light. As you can see, I only lack an ultra wide so in the future I will get a 10-20mm but will probably wait and get the 8-16mm when it's available. My 100-400 is the least used.

I am pretty fond of film for street, using 28, and a 50 for that. Occasionally, 200 prime too, Gary A. got me doing that crap.

 

[nerwin]

I've been slowly turning away from shooting cars using my ultra wide angle. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it just looks weird. It just distorts the car so much, unless you use that distortion in your favor.

 

[idcanyon]

60mm macro I think. Even if people think its useless on full frame.

If a lens is said to be useless, fringe, niche, or a specialty item then it just means what you make with it will be new and different and not look like everyone else's photos. For example, the 8mm f/2.8 fisheye I bought for the Milky Way is surprisingly useful.
Although, I'm pretty sure a 60mm macro is not useless or fringe or any of that.

If you need a habit to feed G.A.S. then try Stereo (3D) photography.

 

[jcdeboever]

I've been slowly turning away from shooting cars using my ultra wide angle. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it just looks weird. It just distorts the car so much, unless you use that distortion in your favor.

My 16 has zero distortion that I can see. Now I borrowed a 10-20 for a weekend now that produced some cool effects.

 

[nerwin]

I've been slowly turning away from shooting cars using my ultra wide angle. Sometimes it works well and sometimes it just looks weird. It just distorts the car so much, unless you use that distortion in your favor.

My 16 has zero distortion that I can see. Now I borrowed a 10-20 for a weekend now that produced some cool effects.

I'm not talking about lens distortion. I'm talking about what it does to the car. Same thing if you take a picture of someone with an ultra wide angle lens, it doesn't look right.

 

[nerwin]

60mm macro I think. Even if people think its useless on full frame.

If a lens is said to be useless, fringe, niche, or a specialty item then it just means what you make with it will be new and different and not look like everyone else's photos. For example, the 8mm f/2.8 fisheye I bought for the Milky Way is surprisingly useful.
Although, I'm pretty sure a 60mm macro is not useless or fringe or any of that.

If you need a habit to feed G.A.S. then try Stereo (3D) photography.

Haha, that's a good point actually. I don't often see the 60mm in people's bags. If you look at the few only groups on Flickr for that lens, they have a thousand or less members whereas groups for the 16-35, 50 and 70-200 have thousands and thousands of members and many images.

So this could allow me to create unique photos and stand out different than other people's photos. Hmm.

 

[SCraig]

I feel like I'm missing something

A big chunk of your bank account, perhaps?

 

[nerwin]

I feel like I'm missing something

A big chunk of your bank account, perhaps?

No, that's normal.

 

[astroNikon]

I have all Nikon lenses (except the Tamron)
18-35 AF-D - inexpensive, not the highest quality but compact, light weight & low cost
24-85/2.8-4.0 AF-D get focal range including portrait
80-200/2.8 AF-D main sports lens, and portrait
Tamron 150-600 - long distance
and 50 & 85mm primes

not the best of the best but they all take great images and lower cost, lower weight and more compact than their big-boy $$$ brethren lenses.


you just have to go back to what do you do, what is your budget, and what is your main objective.
For me now, if I want to add a lens, I'll have to sell a lens. Unless it's a long prime LOL

 

[nerwin]

I'm thinking the 60 2.8G might be the way to go and I can use to take pictures of some 35mm negatives I don't have prints of! So it's a multi use lens I guess.

Is it strange having both a 50 1.8 and a 60 2.8G as they are so close together?