If you chose between a lens or location, which ?

[chris_varner1]

This morning I woke up wondering if I had in hand $8,200.00 to spend

only for nature photography, would I use it to go to Africa, or

Alaska or would I spend it on a big, fast lens. Much as I would love

to have a big, fast lens, I'd go to Africa with the equipment that I

have. A lens, bigger and better, will always be there; Africa may

not. After seeing the 1200 mm lens question, I became curious as to

what others would do--a new lens or a shooting location?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Africa with a great pair of binoculars, and I'd buy a couple of Frans Lanting's books on the way home!</P>

Seriously, I fight this dilemna all the time. Gear is easy to fixate on and acquire and saving money for a trip is difficult and time consuming and doesn't offer the pleasures of immediate consumption.

[photojim]

You need a good compromise.

 

If you spend all your money buying equipment, you'll never go anywhere.

 

If you spend all your money travelling, you'll never get anything permanent with your money.

 

When you buy a lens, you'll always have it (unless you drop it :) ). But the money for the trip is gone forever.

 

That having been said, I love to travel. I vote for a $4,000 vacation (say, Scotland? :) ) and $4,000 worth of equipment. :)

[paul_ashton]

Travel broadens the mind, with or without a big lens. To be honest, there are times when you actually see more without a camera and lens than when you are so busy getting that perfect picture! So I go with the once in a lifetime trip over the big lens. But take more than a P&S with you when you go!

[Hector Javkin]

I would almost always choos the trip, although some equipment is necessary. Many years ago, as a starving graduate student, I received a $3000 windfall. I spent about $800 on my first SLR, lenses and a tripod, and used the rest on a trip to Alaska with my wife. I think those proportions are still right for me as an amateur, at least for the first of a series of trips. My priority is the experience of the trip, together with the best photos I can get with the limited equipment, experience and ability I have.

 

If the absolute priority was to bring back a perfect shot, I'd stay home, then hire a pro to make the trip and shoot it.

[rmohan]

15% of trip expense in camera equipment/films/developing works well

for me. I would definitely choose trip !

[david_henderson]

Depends what sort of person you are. We all know golfers who think more about their equipment than playing; and so-called music fans that are really in love with hifi equipment and view music primarily as a technical test that their stuff has to pass. There are lots of photographers like this too. In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that some photonet contributors are happier chatting about technique and equipment than they'd be in the field making photographs!

 

Myself, I spend virtually no time thinking about my equipment or equipment I haven't got. I spend a huge amount of time thinking of where to go, organising the trips, and researching what I can photograph when I'm there. When I'm there I don't find myself thinking "if only I'd got a ......". I do think about why the light is terrible; when it's going to stop raining; and sometimes that I haven't even had a drink for twelve hours because I'm so absorbed by what I'm trying to achieve. No prizes for guessing how I'd spend it!

[lanierb]

If forced to choose I'd pick option 3: go on the trip but rent the lens.

[stanley_mcmanus]

At the risk of sounding like a Moose groupie, I think his thoughts at

http://www.moose395.net/tip.html

 

are worth considering. One must shoot to learn and grow as a photographer. And you can't do that if you spend your money on equipment and are then unable to spend it on travel.

[bob_royse]

That's something that only you can decide for yourself. If you're really into photographing birds, for example, near your home then getting a long fast lens should be first your priority. If you really want to go to Africa, then don't wait until you have a 600/f4, etc. You'll get far better shots of African game in Africa with a 400/f5.6 than than you will sitting at home with a 600/f4!

 

It certainly doesn't have to cost $8200 for a trip to Africa! Buy a plane ticket, rent a car, and take a tent. Motels in small towns can be inexpensive as well. A trip there doesn't have to cost too much more that a trip within NAmerica. South Africa and some neighboring countries offer unlimited photo ops while being easy to get around at a reasonable cost. Spending a ton of money to line the pockets of a tour operator is a stupid waste of money, IMO. A do-it-yourself month in Africa along with an AF 300/2.8 + tc's is certainly within a $8200 budget.

[piaw]

Definitely travel. It costs less than $8000, and if you spent all $8200 on a lens, you won't have any money left for film and processing. Snapping the shutter without film is an unsatisfactory experience. :-)

 

But frankly, if it's a short enough trip (the typical American 3 week vacation), then $8000 will rent the lens (and appropriate insurance) for 3 weeks while getting you to Africa, so you don't even have to compromise.

[marcus_erne]

If the choice is "either/or" I'd choose to travel.

 

Otherwise I'd look into some cheaper option such as suggested or rent a lens (if necessary with body). Most people say the 100-400 range is fine to cover a safari (what I can cover with my tele travel zoom).

 

As for memories I am all set, but for selling pictures I had to get a long prime...

[bobatkins]

It depends on if it's a one-and-only trip or the first of many. Clearly if you intend to do a lot of travelling and photography is

your passion, you want to take along lenses that will do the job you want to do. If it's a one-and-only trip, maybe rent a lens.

 

A lens is a one time purchase (unless you get bitten by the upgrade bug!). It will serve you on many trips. Might as well buy it before the first one if you can.

[richard_seery]

I 100% agree with Bob's comments. It sounds as if you are going to end up with "the lens" sooner or later, so why not make it sooner and enjoy it on this trip. 4,100.00 dollars (1/2 your available cash) can go a long way on a well planned/budgeted trip. Once a year my wife and I travel for 30 days in Europe (from the US) and spend far less than most people think possible (unlimited miles car rental, bed & breakfast, pre-exchanged currency, etc.) Treat yourself and find a way for both and soon, you're not getting younger and the world's not getting better!!! Happy shooting and safe travels.

[lawrence_abeyta1]

Assuming you don't have a big, fast lens, then I would spend it on the lens. I would rather enjoy my photography more in the area where I live. I live in New Mexico; I am surrounded with such beautiful things, and the surrounding states of Colorado, Utah, Arizona have such beautiful things to photograph. Yes, I would love to take a trip to Africa, but the reality is I could enjoy my surroundings more fully and my photography. I feel that people far too often discount life's everyday experiences that happen in their own backyard.

[herman_hiel]

Chris, on my first trip to Africa I had a manual Practica camera with a 75-300mm and an EOS Rebel ( long go now ) with a Tamron 28-200mm.

The pics from the Practica could not be distinguished from the EOS.

I will always remember this trip, most of all because it helped me to return - up to now - 4 more times.

Since then, my bag has grown to an EOS 1n with 70-200f2.8, 300f2.8 and a 600f4.

There a many cheap ways of travelling to and in Africa; often I see a group of Americans in posh hotels with American guides etc; you can go safely local, maybe not with the same comforts, but htat is part of the journey. We sometimes mix nice and basic hotels; it should be possible to budget 1/2 of that amount on travelling and a 300f2.8; the balance on renting a 600f4.

Go for it !

Herman Hiel

[ShunCheung]

I don't think there is a simple "one size fits all" answer to this question that suits everybody.

<P>

If I get to spend $8200 on nature photography every year, or even every other year, my thinking will be different from a one-time $8200 situation. If I already have an older 500mm/f4 lens, I wouldn't necessarily rush out to buy a 600mm/f4 IS lens unless I know that I'll still have plenty of money left for travel, film, books, food, etc. Unless you happen to be a camera collector, sitting at home with a 600mm/f4 lens won't do you much good.

<P>

Maybe I am taking the $8200 figure too literally, but the point I'd like to make is that if you need a long lens, you can spend say $3500 on a used Canon 500mm/f4.5 EF or Nikon 500mm/f4 P (non-AF) and still have plenty of money left for other things such as traveling. Those lenses aren't as great as the latest 600mm/f4 IS or AF-S, but they'll have perhaps 70 or 80% of their capability at a much lower cost.

<P>

On the other hand, you don't have to travel to Africa to get a lot of nice images. Granted, if you want to shoot lions and rhios in a natural environment (non-captive), you have to go to Africa. But if you live in North America, there are plenty of large mammals to photograph that don't require international travel.

<P>

In another <A HREF="http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eGp">

thread</A> I mentioned a new book called <I>American Vision</I>, which is a collection of nature photographs shot in North America all by amateur photographers. While I am sure there are some rich doctors and lawers who use the latest camera bodies and 600mm/f4 lenses, there are also many great images in the book taken with older camera bodies with third-party zooms or consumer-grade camera-brand zooms. The key to great nature photography is to go out and shoot a lot and have the <B>vision</B> to make great images.

[ryan_taylor1]

Very well put Shun.

[stephen_schoof]

1/4 to equipment, 1/4 to travel, and the rest to the Nature Conservancy.

[dan_woodlief1]

I am fighting this dilemma as I type. I really need to expand my lens set by getting a 300mm and a wide angle (20-35 or 17-35). I want to go to Italy next year too. However, we just had our first child this year. However, I just got a pretty good raise. So what do I do? We may find it hard to go to Italy for two weeks, depending on how the child is in 11 months (when I plan on going)? Do I forgo a lens this year (man, that wide angle would be great for Italy) or do I ignore every interesting used lens that comes across photo.net hoping that we actually will be able to go to Italy in the Fall. And then there is the dilemma of what wide angle to get, as obviously so many of you have faced. I want a 17-35/2.8, but boy that 20-35/2.8 would save some money, and I have seen some really good deals on 24mm lenses. AAAAAGH. My inclination is to go for the trip (I am a confessed travel addict) and buy a lens next year, but I know I will want to travel again then too. Maybe the real answer is to find a way to get rich.

[jerome_smith]

I would rephrase the question to myself as " Which option gives me better returns? Will I enjoy the expensive trip (without the lens) more than I will enjoy the expensive lens (without the trip)? Looking at it this way, I would opt for the lens. It's the " gift that keeps on giving" so to speak.

[martyphoto]

If I were traveling in Africa I would really consider how much effort it is going to take to carry this lens and will the conditions permit you to use the lens when you want too. Personally I'm trying to go light and carry as little as possible so that I can enjoy both the photography and the travel. Dragging the necessary tripod, additional equipment and being concerned about the security for this lens is a daunting prospect.

 

Spend it on the trip and travel light.

 

Marty Schwartz

[mark_mitchell2]

I dont' know, but I would do the trip AND buy the lens... eventually you're going to want both, so I would probably go whole hog right away.

[robert_fisher]

Chris, adopt the time honored US method. Work harder, get another job, get a second job or whatever it takes to make the $8,200. Than you can go to Africa without regret and have a great trip. Anyway if you are serious about wildlife photography, you do need a 600. Oh, plan on adding extra $800-$900, so as to get a 1.4 and 2.0 teleconvertors (you will need them). Also add another $1.200 to $1,500 for the proper tripod and ballhead and than another $200-$500 for a decent bag to tote this stuff around.

[stephen_schoof]

I thought the US method was to just charge everything.