How Much Would You Spend?

Just wondering...do you have any sort of inbuilt limit for how much you'll spend on a major photography purchase, such as a camera, lens, or printer?

I recently got the idea to buy a new lens (this one) because I was fascinated by what I could detect of its performance from online samples. I even went so far as to ask my salesman friend at my local camera store to order one in for me. I figured I could run it through the wringer, write about it, and "sell it on." I'd lose a few hundred bucks, which seemed reasonable considering what I'd get out of the experience. Made sense to me. But I found I was constitutionally unable to fork over the cash for it...I've just spent too much of my life living too close to budgetary peril. It's a psychological issue, not a rational one. But I couldn't give up my grip on a whopping $1600+ for one single-focal-length 24x36 lens. Just couldn't bring myself to do it.

I do owe my salesman friend an apology. (Kevin, are you reading?) [UPDATE: See below.]

I have a local reader friend who shoots with an S2*. He actually makes a very good living as a photographer—he makes more money selling prints than almost anyone I know, in fact—and that camera makes perfect sense for his work. His earnings more than justify the camera's cost. But it almost gives me the willies to handle it. I mean, I could drop it. In fact, this was the chief issue for me during my "Leica period" circa 1991–3. I just never got used to having $3k hanging from my shoulder. It was insured—I was all right—but from first to last I just never could get comfortable.

So how about you? Do you have an upper limit? A comfort zone? Is it just me? Just wondering.

Mike

*I used to have a rule of thumb as an audiophile—your stereo should never cost more than your music collection. Maybe there's a similar rule for cameras—your camera should never cost more than your car. The S2 would violate such a rule in my case—and that's just the body, never mind the lenses.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured (partial) Comment by Tom Clifton: " I am thinking that you shouldn't spend more on your camera/lens than you spend on your computer."

Featured Comment by Andrew Karre: "Amusing. I have two semi-expensive hobbies: cycling (I have a Rivendell, coincidentally) and photography. I am never troubled when the value of the tools I use to practice either exceed the value of my car—but I take no particular pleasure in driving. My limit formula goes like this. Never own a bike or a camera that's so expensive that you couldn't replace it basically immediately if it were lost or stolen with another that would replace the quality of the experience. To me, that's the point at which the cost of the tool infringes on the enjoyment of the activity."

Featured Comment by Jay Frew: "By the time this round of comments is published on your blog, I'm sure I won't be the only one to suggest this: Insured rental for 21 days is $11/day (plus shipping). Three weeks should be enough time for your 35/1.4 bee to find its way out of your bonnet ;~))

"I often rent a super telephoto for two weeks in the Spring (Red Tail Hawks) and I have rented lenses to help with lens purchase decisions. It works for me. Since photography does not contribute to my 'bottom line' (and I like it that way), I don't 'need' any equipment. I am quite happy with what I have (save for the lack of the aforementioned super telephoto—the price of which is out of my orbit). So, I definitely have limits and those limits are trending downwards. Cheers!"

Featured Comment by Kevin: "Apology accepted. ;) Don't let it keep you away Mike. I do enjoy our occasional chats. I understand the comfort zone issue. I have them myself, for camera gear, and other things too. I start to get edgy when I even get close to them. Sometimes even purchases that I rationally know make good practical sense for me require a lot of self-convincing if they bump up against those comfort zones."

Comments

[DerekL]

Back when I was an active model railroader, we had a gentleman in the club who was a Big Wheel in serious model railroading collectibles. I learned early on to ask the value of what he was handing me - as he'd hand over a $10k* locomotive almost as casually as he'd hand over a soda pop. *That* made me uncomfortable.

* Yes, $10k. Some of the late 19th/early 20th century stuff is scarce (#'s known to exist being in the single digits) and chased after by a lot of people.

[Herman]

Another hole one could go into on a lens is
a laser sharp, autofocus, multi focal length Pinhole.

[Dennis Moyes]

If all you want to do is write about it then sell it why don't you just rent one for a week? All the fun, none of the psychic pain.

[Barry Reid]

There's a two part answer here.

I have an Eos DSLR and a few L lenses. Using the very expensive 17mm TS-E still scares the heck out of me, so must be getting close to my limits of comfort for a lens

The reason I could afford that 17mm is that I save up by shopping cannily for the cool film bodies and lenses I could never afford back in the '80s. My spending limit here is, give or take a bit for something special, up to about £200 ($300-ish). For the last few years it was a Canon F-1N and a bunch of other FD stuff, which paid for my exotic tilt-shift. This year and next it's Contax/Yashica & Zeiss, which will pay for my next DSLR and let me move on to an OM-2 SP based system, then...

My limit for newfangled digital bodies and lenses is whatever I can sell the contents of my old green billingham bag for...

[stefan randlkofer]

Usually I think hard about expensive purchases, even if my business easily affords it, but once it's bough I try to forget about its price. My M9 looks quuite banged up, but I am shure many good picture I made with it wouldn't have been taken, if I babied it. I never buy anything which I cannot afford to loose/smash.

[John H. Maw]

"your camera should never cost more than your car". I feel the opposite way round. Your camera gear (not to mention the lighting) should always cost more than your car. Money spent on a car is dead money. With a camera you can create. With a car you just create fumes. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

[Tom K.]

Great question Mike.

The way I look at it is as follows. Buying a good lens is like getting it for free. For example: I bought a Canon 35 f/1.4 a few years ago brand new from B&H. It cost me $1149.99. Today that lens sells at B&H for $1499.99. I could sell it for more than I paid for it. Thus....I used it for a few years. Took great care of it....and now if I want to sell it I can make a bit of money.

[Doug Herr]

your camera should never cost more than your car

Hmmm... I figure that if my car is worth more than my camera, my priorities are out of order. My "car" is actually a 17-year-old pickup truck so just about any camera will do ;)

Reflecting on Mike's comment about being perilously close to financial ruin: yup, been there too long, but with that in mind my most expensive camera purchases have turned out to be the most productive ones (and have hit all seven points on Sunday's blog post).

[cb]

I never spend more on a single item than I would spend on a gift.

[Neal Thorley]

I wouldn't spend a lot on something that I can get comparable results with for less. But I am frugal (read: cheap)

I wouldn't purchase a Leica Summicron because I know there are cheaper lenses that are for all intensive purposes, comparable. **yes I know it's subjective.**

but that's just who I am, I wouldn't say no if someone was to offer me one though.

[Ken Rahaim]

My current limit on what I would comfortably spend is either the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L or the new Canon 24 and/or 17 mm t/s lenses. I've lusted for those lenses for the past 2-4 years but haven't been able to pull the trigger yet.