Downsizing kit, anyone actually regret doing it?

P

PeteStewardson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,481
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
So recently I had the pleasure of borrowing the 50mm 1.2s from Nikon, and I have to say it's just amazing. It's a beast of a lens, but stunning in every way IQ wise.

Having to send it back I noticed I immediately went for the 24-70 and put it back on the camera and it got me thinking as I looked at the camera sat there on the desk. I was fortunate enough to pre-order the NB-N11 grip so have that, and I have the 35, 50, and 85mm 1.8s primes. But I don't use any of them in reality. So it dawned on me, as good as the 50/1.2 is, I don't use the primes nearly enough to justify such a lens. The grip is fantastic and I've always had one before, and all 3 primes are stellar in IQ, far better than the F mount ones I had before. But really I use the 24-70 and 70-200 more than 99% of the time, and don't use the grip as the gripped body doesn't fit in my shoulder bag with the lens on so I just don't use it.

So this got me thinking, maybe I'd be much better off selling the primes, and the grip, and then putting the money into the 12-24 zoom for the wide angle, and then just sticking with the 3 lenses.

Has anyone done a full on downsize and just gone with 3 zooms and regretted it later?
 
I have never got the prime lens thing.

I use the Nikon 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 and 2 shift lenses. I have brought primes in the past but always sell them as they never get used. If you have to shoot in very low light they may have a use but in my experience all of the wide aperture lenses are quiet soft below f/2.8 and so they are of no real benefit to me.

I do tend to compose in camera and tend not to crop images so edge to edge sharpness is quiet important and I am always working from a tripod so the lack of light isn't really a problem.
 
I'm mostly a prime guy and all of mine including my film era primes are easily sharp enough in the central area. For me one of the advantages of primes is that they're usually smaller than zooms.
 
The 1.8Z primes aren't soft at all even wide open, they're all sharp from corner to corner. But I still find I don't use them much as the 24-70 really is fantastic so there is very little need for them. SO I tend to leave them at home all the time which means it feels like there's not much point having them.
 
The only prime I own for my M4/3 is the 17mm F/1.8. Pretty fast and very compact. I don't see me buying another unless maybe it was the 30mm or 60mm macro. Otherwise it'll be a couple more zooms when the cash is available.

In the meantime I am using a bunch of older manual primes and zooms for fun (and they are cheap) but also to get an idea of what focal lengths I am enjoying beyond that which my M4/3 zoom can reach (I own the 12-40 F/2.8).

I also downsized from the 4/3 to M4/3 but that doesn't really count.
 
ah5168 said:
I have never got the prime lens thing.

I use the Nikon 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 and 2 shift lenses. I have brought primes in the past but always sell them as they never get used. If you have to shoot in very low light they may have a use but in my experience all of the wide aperture lenses are quiet soft below f/2.8 and so they are of no real benefit to me.

I do tend to compose in camera and tend not to crop images so edge to edge sharpness is quiet important and I am always working from a tripod so the lack of light isn't really a problem.
Click to expand...

On full frame (F mount) and at shorter FL's I've found centre to edge sharpness usually better with primes than with zooms. I only shoot stopped down, and on tripod.

My 14-24 and 16-35 I found were not brilliant in the edges, the 20mm F1.8 really was better. The 24-70 was unusable in the edges from 24-35mm and oddly 62-70mm - the 70-200 2.8 FL E was terrific all over at all FL's and the 200-500 isn't shabby in the edges once stopped down.

I found since moving to the Pentax 645z the 3 zoom lenses (and one prime) I have are just incredible, all over the frame at all FL's - completely uniform sharpness everywhere. You wouldn't associate a 645z with lightness or portability but not having a kit bag of primes has done exactly that - lighten the load and deliver IQ beyond what is possible in "full frame".

So no, I do not regret going from 4 bodies and 7 lenses to 2 bodies and 4. Actually 3 bodies and 6 (I still have 1 D810 and a 200-500 and 70-200 I cannot yet part with)
 
Last edited:
I've gone the opposite direction, and although the Sony 24-105 is one of the best zooms out there, I use it less and less compared to primes, usually 85, 55, 35 & 18mm. The one zoom I do reach for is a sigma 12-24 because there's nothing else like it.
 
woof woof said:
one of the advantages of primes is that they're usually smaller than zooms.
Click to expand...


Taken individually, maybe but when I shot primes, I would have a 28, a 35, a 50 (or 55), a 135 and eventually a 200. That range is now covered by a single zoom, an 18-135 (on a 1.5x crop factor body)

These days, my kit is usually 3 bodies with a 10-24, the aforementioned 18-135 and a 100-400. VERY rarely, if I want a smaller rig, I'll take a single body with a pancake prime but that's possibly once a year (and last time I did it, I wished I had the wide zoom!)
 
I sometimes think I have too much gear but in comparison to some, it's nothing. I'm very much a more minimalist style of person though.

A7.
35GM/CV40/1.2 is now my main/most used focal length/lens - I'm still in the early days with the 35mm so not sure how things are going to pan out with the Voigtlander just yet.
CV21/3.5 might go out if I'm expecting nice big skies in the landscape or I know I'm going to tighter waterfalls etc
FE85/Contax 80-200/4 I sometimes interchange depending on if I think I might need longer or if I'm out with others & I might need the AF for portraits/the dog!
Samyang 24/1.4 strictly night skies only.

My current EDC though is the A7, 35GM & FE85.
 
PeteStewardson said:
Has anyone done a full on downsize and just gone with 3 zooms and regretted it later?
Click to expand...

I have just sold all my kit, £1k's, I now have a Nikon Z7ii, 14-30 f4 and a 24-200 f4-f6.3, My full kit now wieghs approx 1.5kg instead of 15kg+ yet the few images i have taken with it already assure me that I will not be sacrifising quality to the point it will bother me, I did have a D810 plus the holy trinity (and more) and apart from sports photography this new kit will work brilliant plus my aging back will not suffer! I can't wait to get out and use it in anger.
 
Last edited:
Hanley said:
You'v never used an RF prime then?
The 50mm and 85mm 1.2 lenses are stunningly sharp, even wide open.
Click to expand...

My experience is that modern design wide aperture lenses from Sigma ART series onwards are sharp wide open - only the older fast aperture (usually smaller designs) are soft.
 
I’m considering a slight downsize at the moment. I currently have just one Sony body, with the 28, 35, 55 and 85mm primes, and all of them are fantastic. However, I’d like to be able to just take one lens out with me on occasion so have been thinking about parting with the 28 and 55 and replacing with the 24-105. I can’t imagine parting with the 85 and the 35 is a lovely small and light lens for walking around with minimal gear/weight. I’m still torn...
 
I’d love to downsize ( again ). I went Nikon -> m43 -> Nikon then added Nikon FF to my crop but only a d600 and 50mm. Now I also have m43 again..

My eldest son is 17 and has been using my d500 + 16-80 and the d600 for his automotive a-level course. Now that he has finished the course, he wants to buy a Sony a7iii so if he does get one, I will sell the d600 and my 35mm and 50mm.

I will probably sell my Samyang 7.5 FE ( rarely use it ) and e-m10.2 shortly and go for an e-m1.2

Its just a massive juggling act…
 
Last edited:
All my wildlife kit has gone, I now use a Nikon V3 with a selection of lenses from 6.7 - 110 and a Nikon D300s + 28-70.
Do I regret it, possibly because it has meant that I have had to change direction with my photography (which virtually zero'd through Covid-19) but on the plus side I can now go out on my bike rather than the car and take all I need in a small messenger bag. I'll never get the same sort of photos now but hopefully over time I will adjust my eyes from wildlife to what I can see in my community and at the same time I'll continue to enjoy exercise on my bike. :)
 
I'm very much a prime lens guy. I have a Nikon D780 and the 24-120 but also a set of Nikon D Primes (24, 28, 35, 50, 85 and 105). It's the primes I use most of the time, I just enjoy using them more, I put one on the camera and 1 in each jacket pocket so take 3 out, usually vary the selection, the 105 is used to scan film and the occasional macro shots but I don't take that out very often as it's too big to fit in a pocket. (I'm a minimalist and like to travel light, I try to avoid camera bags etc just have the camera around my neck,)
The 24-120 lens is fine and I do take it out but just not as much as my primes.
In the past I would have had just zooms, 12-24, 24-120 and 100-300 or some combination like that but I found I didn't use the 12-24 and 100 - 300 range much at all so sold them and invested in primes and have never looked back.
 
Andrew Smith said:
Downsize kit??? He who dies with the most toys wins!
Click to expand...


He (or she...) who dies with the most toys has lost. He (or she) who gets to play with the most toys is winning.
 
I never really liked the additional bulk and weight when going from SLR to DSLR. Even the bulk and weight of my 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4 bothered me and made me feel conspicuous. I bought a Panasonic GF1 with 20mm f1.7 but that camera hasn't got a VF and I just didn't like back screen shooting so I changed it for a G1 which is a mini SLR style camera. For the first time since going digital I was happy and the first time I took that camera and kit lens out instead of my 5D I honestly had to keep checking the bag to make sure it was in there such was the reduction in bulk and weight.

These days I have a Panasonic TZ100 which is a 1" sensor compact and a couple of Panasonic MFT RF style cameras but my most used camera is a Sony A7 FF mirrorless camera. For me mirrorless brings advantages such as face detect, being able to focus throughout the frame, WYSIWYG etc but even if all those things were missing I'd stick with mirrorless just for the savings in bulk and weight over the rather chunky things DSLR's have become.
 
Every few years I find that I've got an outfit that no longer suits my needs so I sell most of it. Been doing that for more than 50 years. Interestingly enough: I generally break even because I seldom buy new. Here are a couple of blasts from the past...

Cameras.jpg

My cameras DSC-R1 07075.jpg
 
Apart from my first ever SLR in the 70's, I have not used a prime lens and found three zooms would nicely cover the range from 12mm to 200mm and provide high quality. I would not take a shot at f2.8 normally anyway (DOF too shallow). Recently, I have bought new kit based on a Sony ML and among other zoom lenses, I did buy and f1.8 35mm prime as it was relatively cheap. That was 6 months ago and I have not used the prime once yet. One advantage is that it is small and light which is why I bought the Sony kit. At no time would I have carried round bag of primes with my DSLR (or previous SLR) even it they had been given to me.

Dave
 
I think some presume that you need a bag of primes to replace a zoom. For some people this is simply not true.
 
woof woof said:
I think some presume that you need a bag of primes to replace a zoom. For some people this is simply not true.
Click to expand...
That's true, like I said in my post I just take out 2 or 3 primes and find that suits me fine, I find primes a bit more challenging to get a good composition, a bit more leg work required but often I find I get a better composition with them rather than just zooming in or out from the same place. Also I prefer the lighter weight of each individual lens on the camera.
 
To me downsizing means choosing between just one prime lens or two .... I shoot mainly on film and don't do sports or wildlife so my needs may not be the same as others. A typical outing would be with one 35mm body, a "standard" 50mm (or equivalent in medium or large format) and a 28mm wide angle.

I'm selling some of my lenses longer than "standard" as they don't get used much.
 
I am considering adding more kit over time with the view that it means i can leave the heavier stuff at home when travelling/hiking. Currently my kit is geared around f2.8 zooms which i have bought for the occasional (and hopefully increasingly often) wedding photography i do, but i would like to get a similar focal range but in variable aperture lenses and maybe go from three lenses down to two. I can see that being the cheapest way to do it for me, i did price up a fuji kit recently that would give the same focal range, but more than halve the weight of my nikon setup. It would cost me about 2 grand to do so which is a bit much really.
 
I had 3 primes with my D7K, 35 1.8 Dx, 50mm 1.8 D, 85 1.8 D
Never liked the 35 mm images much, LOVED the 50 and 85 lenses, but the AF was so slow. Got very fed up changing lenses all the time and having a dirty sensor. Focal lengths were too tight on a crop sensor.

I have just gone mirrorless and FF with a Z6ii. Bought the 24-70 f2.8 for toughness, weather sealing and a long shelf life.
 
PeteStewardson said:
So recently I had the pleasure of borrowing the 50mm 1.2s from Nikon, and I have to say it's just amazing. It's a beast of a lens, but stunning in every way IQ wise.

Having to send it back I noticed I immediately went for the 24-70 and put it back on the camera and it got me thinking as I looked at the camera sat there on the desk. I was fortunate enough to pre-order the NB-N11 grip so have that, and I have the 35, 50, and 85mm 1.8s primes. But I don't use any of them in reality. So it dawned on me, as good as the 50/1.2 is, I don't use the primes nearly enough to justify such a lens. The grip is fantastic and I've always had one before, and all 3 primes are stellar in IQ, far better than the F mount ones I had before. But really I use the 24-70 and 70-200 more than 99% of the time, and don't use the grip as the gripped body doesn't fit in my shoulder bag with the lens on so I just don't use it.

So this got me thinking, maybe I'd be much better off selling the primes, and the grip, and then putting the money into the 12-24 zoom for the wide angle, and then just sticking with the 3 lenses.

Has anyone done a full on downsize and just gone with 3 zooms and regretted it later?
Click to expand...

If you’re not using them and don’t need them then yes makes sense and no regrets to sell them, no?

Can you imagine wanting to shoot portrait needing the grip in low light or shallow depth of field needing the wider apertures of the primes? If not, then sell?
 
woof woof said:
I think some presume that you need a bag of primes to replace a zoom. For some people this is simply not true.
Click to expand...

Yup. I like to have a mid-range zoom in the 20-70 range but nowadays I'll grab an 85mm or 50mm as a one camera, one lens setup and go. I'll then be looking for those shots that work with the lens on the camera and probably put a tad more thought into what I'm doing. I've not once felt disadvantaged by the lack of zoom because I know what I'm out to shoot that day.
 
Hanley said:
You'v never used an RF prime then?
The 50mm and 85mm 1.2 lenses are stunningly sharp, even wide open.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on that. My RF 85 1.2 puts all lenses I've ever owned to shame.
As for zooms, even though I own them, they are wasted on me.
Looking back through my archives, I either use a zoom at max or min focal length. I can barely find a shot at mid range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top