Slimming down gear

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

sh1209

sh1209

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Marketplace
Member's gallery
My wife and I have been on a kick lately of getting rid of things whenever use or use rarely. This has got me to thinking about a lot of my camera gear. I feel like I have a lot of overlapping lenses and most likely need to sell off a few of them. My biggest dilemma is owning the 100–400 and 70-200. I feel like I should most likely sell the 70–200 since I use the 100–400 very often. I also have the 600gm, 200-600, 24-70, 14mm, 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 90macro. So I do have a lot of overlap, but I feel like the one that bothers me the most as having the 70–200 as well as the 100–400. I would just like to get other thoughts on what you would recommend and if you also own these two lenses together.
 
Member's gallery
I have both the 100-400 and the 70-200 f2.8 and use them in very different situations.

The 100-400 is my mid-range zoom for wildlife. Period. I pair it with the 600mm TC when shooting wildlife. I probably use the 600mm about 60-70% of the time and the 100-400 the rest of the time. I also have a 1.4 tele which generally stays on the 400 f4.5 for situations where I need to hand hold.

The 70-200 is my long range lens for architecture and accompanies my 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 15mm fish. The only time I use the 70- 200 is when doing architectural photography. And, the 70-200 is my least used lens while the 14-24 and 24-70 are used about 85-90% of the time.

If not for enjoying architectural photography I would sell the 70-200 f2.8.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Dovetailing into what Karen said, the 70-200 serves a very different purpose and I use it on the sidelines, events, etc. If you don't seem to use it for your style of shooting, consider selling it.
Click to expand...
I use it quite often for flowers and bugs but wonder if I shouldn’t be using the 100-400. It’s certainly lighter and easier to maneuver with than the 100-400.
 
Member's gallery
ButlerKid said:
Try using the 100-400. It (the Nikon version) is reportedly very good for small stuff! Let us know what you think.....
Click to expand...
I’m the type of person that stresses out if I’m not using something very often lol. As I get older I try to be more of a minimalist than I already am. Maybe I’m overthinking it and should keep it.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
I’m the type of person that stresses out if I’m not using something very often lol. As I get older I try to be more of a minimalist than I already am. Maybe I’m overthinking it and should keep it.
Click to expand...
I, too, tend to get rid of things. Unfortunately, I often regret it. A couple of years ago I sorted through my winter jackets. I had several and decided I should give one to Good Will. I've regretted it. That ski jacked was old, but my warmest jacket and it was solid black. My newer down jacket is a bright color and now I wish I had that old black jacket to wear when photographing wildlife. Oh well..............
 
Member's gallery
ButlerKid said:
I, too, tend to get rid of things. Unfortunately, I often regret it. A couple of years ago I sorted through my winter jackets. I had several and decided I should give one to Good Will. I've regretted it. That ski jacked was old, but my warmest jacket and it was solid black. My newer down jacket is a bright color and now I wish I had that old black jacket to wear when photographing wildlife. Oh well..............
Click to expand...
That's usually my dilemma. I nearly always second guess or regret selling something.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
My wife and I have been on a kick lately of getting rid of things whenever use or use rarely. This has got me to thinking about a lot of my camera gear. I feel like I have a lot of overlapping lenses and most likely need to sell off a few of them. My biggest dilemma is owning the 100–400 and 70-200. I feel like I should most likely sell the 70–200 since I use the 100–400 very often. I also have the 600gm, 200-600, 24-70, 14mm, 20mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 90macro. So I do have a lot of overlap, but I feel like the one that bothers me the most as having the 70–200 as well as the 100–400. I would just like to get other thoughts on what you would recommend and if you also own these two lenses together.
Click to expand...
I’m in the same boat plus some lol. I don’t use my 70-200 much at all but I did last night and when it’s the lens to use it’s simply magnificent but that is only a couple of times a year.
On my chopping block is my 24GM, 50GM 1.2, 14GM (I have the sigma 1.4), 200-600, 400GM or 300GM I haven’t decided which one I’m keeping and maybe my 90 macro. I’ve also got two a1’s and will be selling one of them soon.
I’ve got bags and tripods I need to part with as well. The hard thing is I like to photography different things and am jealous of those who don’t. It creates extra stuff that doesn’t get used much.
If all I did was say wildlife I’d have my 600GM, 100-400GM, both converters and say the 300 or 400 maybe. But I could live with the 600 and 100-400.
I’ve been considering limiting my types of photography for this reason but still enjoy different types to much to go that far.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
DavidT said:
I’m in the same boat plus some lol. I don’t use my 70-200 much at all but I did last night and when it’s the lens to use it’s simply magnificent but that is only a couple of times a year.
On my chopping block is my 50GM 1.2, 14GM (I have the sigma 1.4), 200-600, 400GM or 300GM I haven’t decided which one I’m keeping and maybe my 90 macro. I’ve also got two a1’s and will be selling one of them soon.
I’ve got bags and tripods I need to part with as well. The hard thing is I like to photography different things and am jealous of those who don’t. It creates extra stuff that doesn’t get used much.
If all I did was say wildlife I’d have my 600GM, 100-400GM, both converters and say the 300 or 400 maybe. But I could live with the 600 and 100-400.
I’ve been considering limiting my types of photography for this reason but still enjoy different types to much to go that far.
Click to expand...
Yeah the 200-600 is another one I have contemplated parting with but sometimes grab that lens and hike with it alone. It does have excellent IQ in good light. I have the 50 1.4 and love it but don't use it as much as other lenses. My top 5 for use would be 600gm, 100-400, 90mm, 20mm and a close tie between the 70-200 & 200-600
 
Member's gallery
The 70-200 is one of my go-to lenses. I carry it and use it for a very high proportion of my photos - everything from sports and equestrian to portraits and landscapes. I use it a high proportion of the time with a fast aperture and a shallow DOF.

Because the 70-200 is so important, I've never bought the 80-400 or 100-400 lenses. The 70-200 has priority over that range, and for longer focal lengths I have options. Currently my most used long lenses are 70-200, 400mm f/4.5, and 800mm PF f/6.3. I carried all three of them with me this past Sunday photographing Petit Le Mans at Road Atlanta - and used them all. For wildlife my use cases are quite clear - 800mm or 400mm - with the 70-200 for environmental wildlife images or landscapes. Invariably the 80-400 or 100-400 lenses have had slower apertures than I wanted, which impacts backgrounds and noise.

For me the one compelling case for a 100-400 or 80-400 is with the very short minimum focus distance in support of insect and flower close ups. Secondarily I could use these lenses for travel when space and weight is limited, but there are some other alternatives.

The 180-600, 200-600 or 200-500 focal lengths are a better fit for me in a kit with a 70-200. I tried a 200-500 very early, ultimately bought it to replace a Tamron 200-500 for my wife, and then borrowed the 200-500 on more than one occasion. I liked the relatively light weight compared to a 600mm f/4 or 500mm f/4, and liked the flexibility of a zoom. I chose the 200-500 over the 150-600 options as well as the 180-600 because it had a constant f/5.6 aperture - something I find useful since I shoot with manual exposure. If I used Auto ISO primarily, it might be a different call. Even with a 500mm PF available, I often chose the flexibility of the zoom. But now, having light weight 400mm and 800 primes, I have sold the 200-500 and not replaced it. The 600mm f/4 is a different beast - requiring a tripod with gimbal and reducing mobility - but with an edge in image quality. I have my 600mm f/4, but it has special use cases - and is worth more to me than the current market value if I sold it.

I would take a hard look at your kit and reduce overlaps. It's better to have gaps than overlaps and unused gear. But also think about what you shoot, how you shoot, and what is important to you. You might have a couple of kits that are filled with your lenses, or specific situations and subject matter that calls for one lens above others.
 
Member's gallery
EricBowles said:
The 70-200 is one of my go-to lenses. I carry it and use it for a very high proportion of my photos - everything from sports and equestrian to portraits and landscapes. I use it a high proportion of the time with a fast aperture and a shallow DOF.

Because the 70-200 is so important, I've never bought the 80-400 or 100-400 lenses. The 70-200 has priority over that range, and for longer focal lengths I have options. Currently my most used long lenses are 70-200, 400mm f/4.5, and 800mm PF f/6.3. I carried all three of them with me this past Sunday photographing Petit Le Mans at Road Atlanta - and used them all. For wildlife my use cases are quite clear - 800mm or 400mm - with the 70-200 for environmental wildlife images or landscapes. Invariably the 80-400 or 100-400 lenses have had slower apertures than I wanted, which impacts backgrounds and noise.

For me the one compelling case for a 100-400 or 80-400 is with the very short minimum focus distance in support of insect and flower close ups. Secondarily I could use these lenses for travel when space and weight is limited, but there are some other alternatives.

The 180-600, 200-600 or 200-500 focal lengths are a better fit for me in a kit with a 70-200. I tried a 200-500 very early, ultimately bought it to replace a Tamron 200-500 for my wife, and then borrowed the 200-500 on more than one occasion. I liked the relatively light weight compared to a 600mm f/4 or 500mm f/4, and liked the flexibility of a zoom. I chose the 200-500 over the 150-600 options as well as the 180-600 because it had a constant f/5.6 aperture - something I find useful since I shoot with manual exposure. If I used Auto ISO primarily, it might be a different call. Even with a 500mm PF available, I often chose the flexibility of the zoom. But now, having light weight 400mm and 800 primes, I have sold the 200-500 and not replaced it. The 600mm f/4 is a different beast - requiring a tripod with gimbal and reducing mobility - but with an edge in image quality. I have my 600mm f/4, but it has special use cases - and is worth more to me than the current market value if I sold it.

I would take a hard look at your kit and reduce overlaps. It's better to have gaps than overlaps and unused gear. But also think about what you shoot, how you shoot, and what is important to you. You might have a couple of kits that are filled with your lenses, or specific situations and subject matter that calls for one lens above others.
Click to expand...
Yeah the mfd is great on the 100-400 as well as the optics. My most unused by far is the 35mm prime.
 
Member's gallery
My 70-200 became a closet queen when I bought the 100-400…simply too short for wildlife in my case so I sold it. I have the 600PF, 100-400, 24-120, and 14-30. Also have the 24-70 and 24-200 which never get used so I should probably sell them And replace with one of the f1.4 primes for a street shooting/walk around lens…currently either the 24-120 pr 24-70 serves that need but both are f4 and the 3 extra stops with the 1.4 would far better enable low light walking around and foot zoom instead of lens zoom. I haven’t figured out yet whether I want the 35 or 50…we are going on a trip soon where that genre will be included and I’m planning on taking the 24-70 and shoot it only at 35 and 50 to help decide.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
My 70-200 became a closet queen when I bought the 100-400…simply too short for wildlife in my case so I sold it. I have the 600PF, 100-400, 24-120, and 14-30. Also have the 24-70 and 24-200 which never get used so I should probably sell them And replace with one of the f1.4 primes for a street shooting/walk around lens…currently either the 24-120 pr 24-70 serves that need but both are f4 and the 3 extra stops with the 1.4 would far better enable low light walking around and foot zoom instead of lens zoom. I haven’t figured out yet whether I want the 35 or 50…we are going on a trip soon where that genre will be included and I’m planning on taking the 24-70 and shoot it only at 35 and 50 to help decide.
Click to expand...
Yeah the 35 is one I should most definitely get rid of. I sorta force myself to use it at times.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
Yeah the 35 is one I should most definitely get rid of. I sorta force myself to use it at times.
Click to expand...
I’m leaning towards the 50 at this point but figured a test would be in order. Couple of comparative reviews ive seen said the 50 is better IQ…but maybe not significant for me as compared to what length seems more useful.
 
Member's gallery
the 70-200 vs 100-400, and/or combination is one I'm always fighting with. I keep swapping back and forth between them.

it doesn't make sense to me to own both, as I prefer the 70-200 + 2x to the 100-400, and I never use TC's with the 100-400.

that being said, the 70-200 just gets used so little in my kit that I swapped it for the 35-150 a few months ago. faster and wider lens, but no option for using TC's.

after a recent trip to Yellowstone/Tetons, I'm thinking about getting rid of the 35-150 + 100-400, in favor of the 70-200 + 180-600.

for me, the 600TC/300GM are the main work horses and zooms are strictly supplemental or used for non-wildlife specific trips. right now the 100-400 fills that role, but it's often too short.

not really much useful info in here... but I feel your pain, and I'm sure many others do as well.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
the 70-200 vs 100-400, and/or combination is one I'm always fighting with. I keep swapping back and forth between them.

it doesn't make sense to me to own both, as I prefer the 70-200 + 2x to the 100-400, and I never use TC's with the 100-400.

that being said, the 70-200 just gets used so little in my kit that I swapped it for the 35-150 a few months ago. faster and wider lens, but no option for using TC's.

after a recent trip to Yellowstone/Tetons, I'm thinking about getting rid of the 35-150 + 100-400, in favor of the 70-200 + 180-600.

for me, the 600TC/300GM are the main work horses and zooms are strictly supplemental or used for non-wildlife specific trips. right now the 100-400 fills that role, but it's often too short.

not really much useful info in here... but I feel your pain, and I'm sure many others do as well.
Click to expand...
It's definitely a hard decision to make without regretting.
 
Member's gallery
sh1209 said:
It's definitely a hard decision to make without regretting.
Click to expand...

one thing that gives me solace, is no matter how much gear I have - it's usually the wrong gear at the time.

I'm shooting with the 400TC, I wish I had the 600TC. I'm shooting with the 600TC, wishing I had the 400TC. Shoot with the 100-400, wish for the 70-200. Shoot with the 70-200, wish for the 100-400. It never ends 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top