Slimming down gear

[sh1209]

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

I feel your pain lol. I always carry two bodies with lenses and occasionally 3 but still sometimes seem like I don’t have the right one

 

[ButlerKid]

I'm in transition mode.....accelerated by shoulder problems. SO - I am adding a lens to the lens stable..... with the intention of selling the 600 TC in the future. Probably will take a small financial hit.....but in the end I will transition lenses to suit different subjects of the future. I don't keep lenses I'm not using......

 

[MrFotoFool]

I am a minimalist, so I hate having things I don't use. I own three lenses, having recently sold a fourth (14-30) because I wasn't using it. Considering how well mirrorless teleconverters work with a 70-200, FOR ME it makes little sens to own that and a 100-400 when you can add teleconverters to the 70-200 and get essentially the same lens (plus a bonus lens at f2.8 by removing them). I shoot Nikon Z, but with these two lenses the situation would be the same for your Sony. If you find you often like or need the larger f2.8 then you may want to do what I do and go with just 70-200 plus 2x and/or 1.4x teleconverter (I own both). If you rarely need f2.8 and usually shoot the 100-400 towards the long end, then perhaps keep that and ditch the 70-200. However, you have the 200-600 which overlaps the 100-400 with more reach, so if you intend on keeping it then I think the more logical solution is ditch 100-400 and keep 70-200 with possible addition of teleconverter.

 

[sh1209]

I am a minimalist, so I hate having things I don't use. I own three lenses, having recently sold a fourth (14-30) because I wasn't using it. Considering how well mirrorless teleconverters work with a 70-200, FOR ME it makes little sens to own that and a 100-400 when you can add teleconverters to the 70-200 and get essentially the same lens (plus a bonus lens at f2.8 by removing them). I shoot Nikon Z, but with these two lenses the situation would be the same for your Sony. If you find you often like or need the larger f2.8 then you may want to do what I do and go with just 70-200 plus 2x and/or 1.4x teleconverter (I own both). If you rarely need f2.8 and usually shoot the 100-400 towards the long end, then perhaps keep that and ditch the 70-200. However, you have the 200-600 which overlaps the 100-400 with more reach, so if you intend on keeping it then I think the more logical solution is ditch 100-400 and keep 70-200 with possible addition of teleconverter.

That is a good point with the teleconverters, because that lens does accept telecon converters very nicely. The 1.4 is completely indistinguishable from the bare lens, but actually it is on the 100–400 as well. The 2.0 on the 100–400 is not that great but still usable.

 

[jhallettbc]

I had the 100-400 but when I got the 600PF, I decided to get rid of and keep my Z70-200 using the 1.4TC when necessary. Keeping the two was too much overlap.

 

[Len Shepherd]

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.

I own both lenses and use the 100–400 most as I do a lot of relatively close-up insect and flower photography for which I find it especially useful.
Also the 100-400 paired with the 24–120 I find this two lens combination very useful for much photography when I choose not to carry distinctly heavier gear.
I normally use the 70–200 relatively infrequently for sports (mainly cycle racing) on public roads in the summer.
Over the last two days my 70-200 has come very much into use photographing a jazz festival being held in the local church. The combination of f2.8 and modest telephone reach have been extremely useful.
Everyone photographs different subjects – if you very rarely use your 70–200 then there is a good case for selling it even though several other posters find regular use for their copy.

 

[sh1209]

I own both lenses and use the 100–400 most as I do a lot of relatively close-up insect and flower photography for which I find it especially useful.
Also paired with the 24–120 I find this two lens combination very useful for much photography when I choose not to carry heavier gear.
I normally use the 70–200 relatively infrequently for sports (mainly cycle racing) on public roads in the summer.
Over the last two days my 70-200 has come very much into use photographing a jazz festival being held in the local church.The combination of f2.8 and modest telephone reach have been extremely useful.
Everyone photographs different subjects – if you very rarely use your 70–200 then there is a good case for selling it even though several other posters find a use for their copy.

I normally use it most in the spring and summer but need to start implementing it more throughout the year for sure.

 

[ccirelli]

It's all about use case. The 70-200 is popular and versatile, but having the 100-400 and using that far more - sounds like you don't need the 70-200. It's too expensive of a lens to just have sitting around.

How about this - go into your editing software and pull up everything you've shot with the 70-200. Really look over the images. Then do the same with the 100-400. This is very easy to do in Lightroom, probably many other apps as well. Compare numbers and favorite images, that should help you decide.

Your other lenses - I'd argue you can ditch the 200-600, or the 600 prime. But that's just me, and I'd likely keep the 200-600. Everyone should have a 24-70 or similar. And the 20, 50, and 90 macro are keepers (again for me). You could probably also sell the 14 or 20, but personally I love a good 20 prime.

Depends how minimalist you really want to go. Hope this helps in some way!

 

[robert_in_ca]

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.

I surprised that you're considering selling your 300mm. Any particular reason?

 

[DaveyDitzer]

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.

I have also allowed myself to stress over equipment that is not used often. However, I've also sold things and later regretted it (photo stuff, shotguns, and an old Porsche) . I have reached a philosophical place where I can slow down on ridding myself of something until I am absolutely sure I will never go out an buy a replacement.

 

[mathjak107]

I'm in transition mode.....accelerated by shoulder problems. SO - I am adding a lens to the lens stable..... with the intention of selling the 600 TC in the future. Probably will take a small financial hit.....but in the end I will transition lenses to suit different subjects of the future. I don't keep lenses I'm not using......

we just got two thousand dollars from keh as my wife and i redid all our lenses in to z series stuff

 

[AprilInA2]

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.

Do you handhold the 600mmTC

 

[ButlerKid]

Do you handhold the 600mmTC

No way! That's why I stated I use the 400 f4.5 + 1.4 tele for hand holding.

 

[AprilInA2]

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.

Yes, I’m in the same boat , or should I say , closet. I have a number of closet queens over three systems which is totally ridiculous. I ‘ve held on to my long macro lenses Nikon ( Nikon 200mm and Sigma 150) , I still have a Canon MPE, my Nikon D850 ( for the macros) , Nikon 500PF, and assorted bodies including the Z8 and Canon R5. I love macro and shooting birds, but I also delve into landscape. On my trips, mostly shoot wit 600mm. But, my body is getting the 600 blues. I plan to sell a bunch of closet queens in the coming month. I’d like to go back to just one system.

 

[sh1209]

Yes, I’m in the same boat , or should I say , closet. I have a number of closet queens over three systems which is totally ridiculous. I ‘ve held on to my long macro lenses Nikon ( Nikon 200mm and Sigma 150) , I still have a Canon MPE, my Nikon D850 ( for the macros) , Nikon 500PF, and assorted bodies including the Z8 and Canon R5. I love macro and shooting birds, but I also delve into landscape. On my trips, mostly shoot wit 600mm. But, my body is getting the 600 blues. I plan to sell a bunch of closet queens in the coming month. I’d like to go back to just one system.

It’s definitely hard to make the decision which ones to get rid of and when to get rid of them it seems like I keep talking myself out of it lol

 

[Ken Miracle]

As you may remember I am blessed to not be very weight sensitive, and also as you know things can change in a flash.

I am in the Nikon world but as my photography interests have settled down and narrowed down a bit I have sold off the Z glass just sitting in my dry cabinet. Many of the ones I got rid of were purchased when there were very few z mount alternatives.

Now with my focus on bird ID photography, the indoor and outdoor people stuff I do for church and the rare landscape type of shot and carrying two camera bodies on my holdfast money maker more often. And with the advent of 2 new Tamron Z mount lenses that fit my needs I have ended up with far more room in my dry cabinets. I sold off Z50, Z14-30, Z100-400, Z70-200 and ZTC2.0 and Z180-600.

My camera body collection grew by 1 with a Z6III added to my 2 Z9's. My lenses are now a Z800mm f/6.3 my most used lens, Zmount Tamron 150-500, Z600mm f/6.3, Zmount Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 my people photo workhorse, Z24-120. Those cover all the focal lengths etc. that I need for what I do.

I have one probable addition next year the new Tamron z mount 90mm macro. New lenses will come along and I may get a loaner Z400 f/2.8 TC from NPS some time and check it out and if it works logistically for me it could replace my Z600mm f/6.3. I hope I can stay better at have less overlap and fewer lenses just sitting in my dry cabinet in the future

 

[sh1209]

As you may remember I am blessed to not be very weight sensitive, and also as you know things can change in a flash.

I am in the Nikon world but as my photography interests have settled down and narrowed down a bit I have sold off the Z glass just sitting in my dry cabinet. Many of the ones I got rid of were purchased when there were very few z mount alternatives.

Now with my focus on bird ID photography, the indoor and outdoor people stuff I do for church and the rare landscape type of shot and carrying two camera bodies on my holdfast money maker more often. And with the advent of 2 new Tamron Z mount lenses that fit my needs I have ended up with far more room in my dry cabinets. I sold off Z50, Z14-30, Z100-400, Z70-200 and ZTC2.0 and Z180-600.

My camera body collection grew by 1 with a Z6III added to my 2 Z9's. My lenses are now a Z800mm f/6.3 my most used lens, Zmount Tamron 150-500, Z600mm f/6.3, Zmount Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 my people photo workhorse, Z24-120. Those cover all the focal lengths etc. that I need for what I do.

I have one probable addition next year the new Tamron z mount 90mm macro. New lenses will come along and I may get a loaner Z400 f/2.8 TC from NPS some time and check it out and if it works logistically for me it could replace my Z600mm f/6.3. I hope I can stay better at have less overlap and fewer lenses just sitting in my dry cabinet in the future

Yeah I have too much overlap for sure. I would like to try that new macro lens as well. It has a tall bar to climb to be sharper than the Sony but I’m sure it’s a great lens.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Yeah I have too much overlap for sure. I would like to try that new macro lens as well. It has a tall bar to climb to be sharper than the Sony but I’m sure it’s a great lens.

The old Tamron dslr 90 macro was a real legend and some pros I know still have it adapted to z cameras and one kept a D850 just for use with it. Tamron has been making lenses for Sony a long time both Sony branded and Tamron branded in different focal lengths and more of those are finding their way to Z mounts where they have been making or licensing patents to Nikon for some time and now Nikon giving them approval for more under the Tamron name. So my bet is it will be a really nice lens useable for more than just macros same as the old one was.

 

[FB101]

I have owned many 70-200 f:2.8 lenses over the years, various canon, sigma and Nikon. It was when the 100-400 (or 80-400) didn’t cut it optically. The new versions are so good (Nikon or Sony) that for the first time I don’t own a 70-200 f;2.8 in probably close to 30 years.

i do love the Tamron 35-150 f;2.8 for events though - far more versatile range. I’ve only rented it because I really wasn’t sure it was a lens that made sense but after using it for a couple events, I’d buy that before the 70-200 f:2.8 nowadays. I’d even consider it for street photography if it wasn’t so big and obnoxiously intrusive.

 

[sh1209]

I have owned many 70-200 f:2.8 lenses over the years, various canon, sigma and Nikon. It was when the 100-400 (or 80-400) didn’t cut it optically. The new versions are so good (Nikon or Sony) that for the first time I don’t own a 70-200 f;2.8 in probably close to 30 years.

i do love the Tamron 35-150 f;2.8 for events though - far more versatile range. I’ve only rented it because I really wasn’t sure it was a lens that made sense but after using it for a couple events, I’d buy that before the 70-200 f:2.8 nowadays. I’d even consider it for street photography if it wasn’t so big and obnoxiously intrusive.

Yeah the 100-400 Sony has incredible image quality as well as a short MFD. I wish the zoom ring were easier to operate and less lens creep but optically it's fantastic.

 

[Ken Miracle]

I have owned many 70-200 f:2.8 lenses over the years, various canon, sigma and Nikon. It was when the 100-400 (or 80-400) didn’t cut it optically. The new versions are so good (Nikon or Sony) that for the first time I don’t own a 70-200 f;2.8 in probably close to 30 years.

i do love the Tamron 35-150 f;2.8 for events though - far more versatile range. I’ve only rented it because I really wasn’t sure it was a lens that made sense but after using it for a couple events, I’d buy that before the 70-200 f:2.8 nowadays. I’d even consider it for street photography if it wasn’t so big and obnoxiously intrusive.

One of the best 70-200 f/2.8's I had was the Tamron G2 and it's companion Tamron TC 1.4 an 2. I found the same thing with the new Z mount glass that my use case for my Z70-200 f/2.8 was greatly diminished and when the new Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 came out after a few uses the Z70-200 f/2.8 was sold. I do forms of street photography but the subjects know I am there and why but if I was doing the old street photography I did in the past it is "noticeable"

 

[DavidT]

I surprised that you're considering selling your 300mm. Any particular reason?

I’ve had 300’s in the past and I often find them to short. It is great with converters and that was my intention of having something smaller but I also have the 400GM and 600GM. My 600 is by far my most used lens. My 400 often sits in the safe and the 600 gets packed in the bag.
I feel that if I keep the 300 I should sell the 400 or sell the 300 and keep the 400 around.
My challenge is I do shoot sports and the 400 often is the perfect lens but I do find myself doing less of that so it’s not used as much as it once was. I am likely moving and we have been talking about an RV that would allow more travel while working and I’d like to focus more on large mammals vs birds at times and when including environment the 400 is a great choice.
It’s a first world problem for sure but I’d take a bigger hit on my 400 than my 300 if I did sell one. Not rushing to make a decision just yet as I’ve got other lenses and a body to sell before I do something with them.

 

[sh1209]

I’ve had 300’s in the past and I often find them to short. It is great with converters and that was my intention of having something smaller but I also have the 400GM and 600GM. My 600 is by far my most used lens. My 400 often sits in the safe and the 600 gets packed in the bag.
I feel that if I keep the 300 I should sell the 400 or sell the 300 and keep the 400 around.
My challenge is I do shoot sports and the 400 often is the perfect lens but I do find myself doing less of that so it’s not used as much as it once was. I am likely moving and we have been talking about an RV that would allow more travel while working and I’d like to focus more on large mammals vs birds at times and when including environment the 400 is a great choice.
It’s a first world problem for sure but I’d take a bigger hit on my 400 than my 300 if I did sell one. Not rushing to make a decision just yet as I’ve got other lenses and a body to sell before I do something with them.

I also rarely use the Sony 14mm and usually choose the 20mm 1.8

 

[O]

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.

There two completely different tools.

Can you do everything you need on the 100-400 ?
if not Keep them both you have nothing to worry about, its when you sell one then you will need it is usually the case LOL.

For myself If it doesn't get used in 6 months it goes on a certain wire shelf, if it then it doesn't get used by the time 12 months is up its sold or given away, regardless of what it is.

The less is more principal is a blessing.

For myself Digital products always have a high obsolescence depreciation rate.

Newer technology in cameras a lenses is such that quality lower cost zooms can deliver some very impressive results.

I saw a photographic and painting gallery open this week, many of the photos from the D850 and 28-300 hand held works sold, the clinically blindingly sharp accurate technically photos didn't get sold.

Buyers didn't see or care let alone know about CA, Noise, Flair, softness, it was the mood, colour, and composition that engaged them.


Only an opinion

 

[Calson]

The 70-200mm lens is used primarily for landscape photography, including stitched panoramas. It is also an option for macro photography as I can no longer use the Nikon 200mm macro lens with my Z cameras.