To the guys who ask what lens to get next

<p>I knew a guy who grew up during the depression. One day he asked his father for a quarter. "What for?""To buy a record." "You already have a record." If you do not feel a strong need for your work, don't buy anything.</p>

<p>Some just got to collect you know, . . . like Guitars & Cars! But, still can only use one at a time!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A day came a man consult this philosopher for to know at o'clock it was owe to eat. If thou are rich, told him eat when you shall wish; if you are poor, when you may do so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>English as She Is Spoke</em> by Pedro Carolino, p. 104</p>

<p>That is if you're rich buy all the gear you want whenever you want. Otherwise if you're poor, buy when you can afford to do so.</p>

<p>This is from the incredible phrase book found by Mark Twain on the trip reported in <em>Innocents Abroad</em>. Because of Twain, it has been reprinted a number of times.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>It's one thing if a person has a general idea of what kind of lens they want, but aren't sure which one is best. That's understandable and reasonable, though occasionally one gets the impression that the person could have done a little more research online. Lens reviews are not hard to find; there's this thing called Google, you know...</p>

<p>But what puzzles me are the people who have no idea what they want but still want to buy something. "I have a D90 and the kit lens and I think I'm ready for another lens -- what should I get?" makes no sense to me. Why do you want another lens? What do you want that the kit lens can't do? Longer reach? Wider view? Faster aperture? Faster or more accurate AF? Better sharpness? With no goal, the desire to buy more lenses just seems like a magpie grasping after shiny objects. I'm sure in many cases it's really a sort of inchoate desire for broader experience, but still, you should be able to prioritize your interests to decide what sort of lens you want to buy at this time (telephoto, macro, ultra-wide, fast standard-length prime, etc.). Once you've done that, it's much easier for others to give you meaningful advice.</p>

<p>Oh, and about that quarter anecdote... My wife once asked me why I needed to buy more music when we have so many CDs already. I replied, "Yes, but we don't have <em>this</em> one." She conceded the point.</p>

<p>My take...on lenses, gears etc...</p>

<p>Photographers should travel more. Traveling gets you new subjects and you cut down your gears to the bare essential. Anything extra crap you want bring, you'll have to carry and lug them around. After awhile...three or four lenses is about it. Any more is going to bog you down. Being with less gear also will let you know them better which, in turn, will let you concentrate on your artistic vision if you are into that...</p>

<p>My take on it is to upgrade or add when what you have can't deliver the results you want.</p>

<p>My take is: spend more money on showing your work, whether printing for an exhibit, or framing for a gallery show. It makes you think less about your equipment, and more about your work and vision.</p>

<p>While it is likely perfectly obvious why <em><strong>you </strong></em>(and that's a collective "you" not aimed at anyone in particular) would buy another lens, it may be not be so obvious that others are looking for the voice of experience and advice, not criticism for asking the question. We have all sought advice from those more experienced at some point in our careers. I would never eschew those looking to advance their knowledge and improve their skill.</p>

<p>Of the buying of cameras and lenses there is no end.</p>

<p>How is the economy going to improve if no one buys anything?</p>

<p>i am usually annoyed by posts like we're discussing, the more nebulous the request, the more annoyed. on the other hand, they could be asking <em>what pistol should i buy next</em>? and then i realize the interest in lenses is comparatively quite harmless. if, as has already been remarked, the posters have the financial resources, i won't fault their interest in acquiring more gear.</p>

<p>Given that one of the main stated aims of Photonet is to help people learn about photography I would have thought a bit of leeway is required here. Haven't we all asked questions? Haven't we all in retrospect from time to time all asked daft questions?</p>

<p>Cut them a bit of slack, chaps.</p>

I agree with Colin. This is not just a site for the cognoscenti. There is no such thing as stupid question.

<p>I think this is called Retail Therapy nowadays. Buying something when you can afford it makes you feel good.</p>

<p>Myself, I think I have two reasons. One is if the current equipment doesn't enable what I want.<br>

The other is curiosity. What might I be able to do if I had that ? Does it work like people say it does ?<br>

What might I find out that I don't know yet ?<br>

That doesn't always mean expensive, it could be a plastic magnifying glass on a cardboard tube, as much as it could be a fairly expensive piece of new technology.</p>

<p>The child who couldn't have another record wasn't going to learn much about music, was he ?<br>

If you really can't get anything else, you use what you can get, but it can get pretty restrictive.</p>

 

<p>Apparently, those who have perfected their craft or artistic approach in photography look for ways to do more with less equipment. I have purchased some equipment that has seen less than intended use, and have mostly resold it. The need for another lens is often accompanied by the thought of how much better a photographer it will make the buyer, but I think that is not always the result. Cartier-Bresson mainly used his 50mm Leica lens, parhaps because it suited best his shooting style, perhaps because other focal lengths would not have given him much more or perhaps might have complicated his singular approach.</p>

<p>Michael has it in his comment. When you also have an unconvincing urge to add another lens, take out your favourite lens and do some shooting and then exhibit what you have done. That often reinforces your work and subdues the lens-buying urge.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no such thing as stupid question.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, but questions CAN be asked stupidly. "What lense (sic) should I get for my Canikon D300 MkII?" is less likely to get a useful response than "I have a Canikon D300 MkII. I am going on a family trip and want to travel light. What lens should I buy?"</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This is not just a site for the cognoscenti.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Where do I find such a site?</p>

<p>I think it's interesting how few beginners ask questions about composition or light, and concentrate on hardware instead. Maybe marketing has something to do with it by building an expectation that tools will do <em>all </em>of the work for us.</p>

<p>While I agree that gear purchases should largely be based on need, sometimes trying something new or different can spark creativity...a new way of looking at things. It can also drive learning new techniques, which can also spark creativity. OTOH, sometimes folks just don't know how to ask the right question.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So is there now a requirement that all PN posters write only perfect American English?<br>

This being an international forum, attacking people's language skills is uncalled for.<br>

And "lense" is properly spelled in many parts of the world.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bob, your point about "lense" is well taken (I actually did not know that it was an accepted alternate spelling), but the most annoying problems with "language skills" actually come from native English speakers, usually Americans! When it seems clear that someone's native language is not English, I certainly make allowances for mistakes, but the level of sheer ineptitude in sentence construction and spelling among Americans is well worthy of criticism. Sounding like a foreigner is one thing, but being incompetent in your own language is quite different.</p>

<p>Colin and Dick, there is a difference between a "daft" question and a question that obviously cannot be meaningfully answered. If someone asks, "Do you need chemicals to develop film?", that might be considered daft, but at least it can be answered. But how can we recommend a lens for someone when they don't seem to have any clear idea of why they want to buy one or what kind of pictures they want to take with it? Even so, what I notice is that most people (myself included) reply to such requests with courtesy, usually in the Socratic mode, encouraging the OP to clarify their desire to the point that a meaningful recommendation can be made. It's not that PN has a problem dealing with beginner questions; but the same incredibly vague beginner questions come up over and over, and it can be a little exasperating. This thread is just a place to vent about the issue. There's no harm in that.</p>

<p>[[And "lense" is properly spelled in many parts of the world.]]</p>

<p>Next you're going to be claiming that Lose and Loose are the same thing.</p>

<p>Lense rhymes with Tense. This has nothing to do with "American English."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And "lense" is properly spelled in many parts of the world.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No. It isn't. A rumor on the Internet reported that 'lense' was the 'original spelling' of the word, and is so referenced in the Oxford English Dictionary. It isn't. I have two editions of the OED, and neither have 'lense'. It is not so-spelled in any language I or my translator wife know. In German it is 'linse' which is the closest, although I learned 'objektiv' (centuries ago).</p>

<p>A group of lexicographers at Princeton in 2005 did list 'lense' as an alternative spelling. They cited no references for this, and are the only ones to have listed it at the time. (Merriam-Webster's MEDICAL dictionary did pick this up from Princeton, and they are the only ones currently listing it. It is NOT in their regular dictionary.)</p>

<p>Never thought that "lense" was British English.<br>

But it's commonly used by plenty of people and will be found as a variant in some dictionaries.<br>

In any case, photography ain't about perfick spelling or gud grammer.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No, Bob, but online communication is in large part about writing, and anyone who can't write or spell properly in their own native language is going to come off looking like a dope.</p>

<p>Having checked my own copy of the Compact OED, I find that Les is almost correct. The COED does list "lense" as a word, but it has nothing to do with optics. It's an obsolete verb meaning "to macerate" or "to become lean."</p>

<p>Hmmmmm. Someone want to look up "bokeh" in their OED?<br>

Mine's at home.</p>

<p>The full OED is the same as Craig's compact version -- lense is only listed as an obsolete verb meaning "to make lean", "to macerate", or "to become lean", dating to the 11th and 12th centuries.</p>

<p>Bokeh does not (yet?) appear in the OED.</p>