I know, an inane question, and it's not dpreview, but...
.... I realise we all probably have a fantasy lens that we'd really really like but that is ridiculously expensive. But, do any of you have in mind your next affordable lens, ie, realistic as opposed to fantasy?
Example: my fantasy one would be a Canon 17mm TSE or 14mm L...but, nope, no chance of either. My more realistic choice would be between a secondhand Canon 400mm f5.6L and a 35mm f2.
What about yous?

If I said I was done and not going to buy any more, would anyone believe me?

I do feel like I'm done. Seven for Nikon, three for Olympus, and three for my GH1. If I was to walk past a bin of old manual focus F-mount lenses, I might be tempted to explore it, but from what I've seen their prices are still above what I'm willing to pay.

There are lenses on my dream list. I'd be happy to swap my Sigma 180/3.5 macro for the Nikon 200/4; the Leicasonic 45/2.8 is nice for half as much as it costs; I'd love either the 24 or 45 PC-E tilt-shift lenses. I'm sure there are some Zeiss lenses that I could be tempted by, as well. But I'm not about to buy any of them, and there's nothing practical that I need, either.

If I find anything, I'll let you know.

Ack....is it really the lens that makes the photographer??

I took some golf lessons once and the instructor said "If people would spend a quarter as much on lessons as they spend on equipment, they would be 10 times better golfers."

Photography spans the gap between technology and art - but many of us get trapped into thinking that the technology makes the art...

Good luck with that.

Good question Zig, I think equipment purchasing for most of us goes in cycles... every few months / years or so we go through upgrades and refreshes so it's a pretty legitimate query. Some, like those above may be at the peak of their satisfaction cycle and have all their immediate needs met, so they may be holding off.

For me, I changed systems completely towards the end of last year, so I've only got a standard zoom lens and a 60mm macro at the moment. I wouldn't mind something with longer reach, like a nice 70-200mm f/2.8. I used to have a Sigma and it was a beauty - would love to get something similar again.

I have three primes, 50mm, 85mm, and 180mm macro. I love them all. However, I wish my 85mm had macro capabilities, the closest focusing distance is 0.95mm... too far.

As for the one I'd buy if I had the $$chance$$, would be the macro Jules has, the 60mm macro. I think it is a great lens.

Matthew once said, I believe on this forum that there are 2 separate hobbies: photography and photo equipment acquisition. He should know ( ). I very much agree with Robert: Equipment does not make us photographers. I have seen spectacular portfolios shot using P&S and I know of photographers on Flickr that constantly add to, update and replace expensive equipment and yet do not have a decent photo (that I know of) to their name. And yet I too have both the hobbies. I try to encourage one and manage the other. (You be the judges which is which). To buy any new equipment, I have to satisfactorily answer a question about additional capability that I do not currently have. I am not a great believer in fancy lenses. With some understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses you have, effective use in the field and careful and skillful post-processing, you can consistently get technically excellent images from consumer grade lenses. The real limitations in most photos I see do not lie with equipment, but solely with photographers. And yet... I do have an equipment bug and every once in a while, I must feed the tiger. For over a year, I have been agonizing about purchasing a lens with 400 to 500 mm reach (probably a zoom). In winter, I find that in Toronto you can do architecture (indoor and out) (not a great fan), abstracts (OK, but not really me), snow if there is any, people (too shy and since I do not like to have my photos taken, I respect the others too). My idea is the Toronto ZOO. On my one visit there, I found the 300 mm a bit short sometimes. I want to buy a year pass and do a lot of photography there. A long lens comes in handy for photos of smaller birds and other wildlife. There are almost as many photos of birds as there are photos of sunsets (brrrr), but i would like n to give it a go. Currently there is not much selection in stabilized zooms (the only type I would consider at that focal length) at non-astronomical price for Nikon mount. It is either the much maligned 80 to 400 from Nikon, which rumor has it will soon be replaced or an average 150-500 from Sigma. In the store where I played with it, I found it hunting a lot even in a bright indoor light, although on a sunny day outside it was OK. This is the one time I wish I was a Canon shooter - they have the excellent 100-400, which will take extenders. In general, Canon has more choice in the telephoto range. I am hoping that Nikon will come out with a replacement for the current 80-400 before winter so that I have a choice. If nothing happens, I will get the Sigma.

P

Interesting and fun replies! Point taken Rob, which was why I thought I'd ask about realistic rather than lustworthy choices.
I'm finding it fascinating thinking about how you all "see": some seem to like the journey of exploring longer tele lengths, and some the macro worldview...I'm more of a "wider and more peripheral" chap myself, keener to wonder and reflect about vertical-format landscapes with wide-angle lenses.
( My "point", if you like, to this thread was to explore not so much your preference for kit, but to understand a little more of how each of you sees...)
Lovely. Keep 'em coming.

Zig, I too prefer wider view, but it is harder to find a photo opportunity for a wide/ultra-wide composition not involving people in a cluttered, boxy city. I love wide and ultrawide in nature.

Although I don't have any financial constrictions, I still have to justify something/anything I purchase to myself.
If I buy, (say) a 600mm L. then would it make me a financial return. I doubt it, as my photography is a hobby and not a job. Secondly the weight of it, would mean it stayed at home more and more.
So I would like, but wont get, is the answer.
I would like a lightweight 10-300/400 mm L , which would solve the sensor dust etc., and rummaging through the bags for lenses.

Before my deafness came on, the same applied to the instruments and amplifiers I bought.

Fair enough, Zig. My fantasy lens would resemble my existing 18-200 - but sharper, faster, and smaller. That's not asking too much is it?

Haha Toad, if they made one of those, I'd buy it too

I would like to get the yet to be announced 24-70 2.8 L IS (stabilised lens) from Canon. Apparently it is not too far away. The 24-70 along with the 70-200 are my work horse lenses. I recently bought the new version of the 70-200 and am very happy with it.

I am actually thinking of maybe unloading some lenses rather then buying more to be honest.

For the affordable lens category (I already own them but for other's interest) I can highly recommend the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.8 Macro form Canon.

Cheers,

Chris

Feel free to unload them in my direction Chris.

....

I am just reading all your thoughts now.... thank you,

with my love,
nia

I suppose, considering the question from the 'how do I see' angle, I have to admit to playing with the Nikon 180/2.8 the other day. It's still a pretty expensive lens, but I do like the focal length, and it's a relatively small lens. I'd love to have one. I'm highly unlikely to buy it, though, since I'm not a huge fan of the 1.5m minimum focusing distance - and I already own the bigger Sigma 180mm macro lens. But on the other hand, I own duplicates in 35 and 85mm lenses, so it's not actually out of the question. (But then I'd need the 105/2.0 DC as well, which is another lens that I like but could never justify.)

Zig Wrote:Feel free to unload them in my direction Chris.

Funny enough I was actually thinking of unloading my 135 2

Wedding Shooter Wrote:

Zig Wrote:Feel free to unload them in my direction Chris.

Funny enough I was actually thinking of unloading my 135 2

I'm closer distance-wise... you should unload it my way!

I will pay the shipping

Pavel Wrote:I will pay the shipping

... and buy a Canon camera to put it on?

No - there are limits. I was planning to use canon for what it is good for - excellent paper weight
P

Pavel Wrote:I will pay the shipping

What ! For Jules? That's really friendly of you Pavel.

A couple of days ago, I proposed that my ideal lens would be my Nikon 18-200 F3.5-F5.6 VR except shaper, smaller, and faster. We all laughed...

However, I can't help but notice that the Panasonic 14-140 F4-F5.8 that is fully compatible with my GF1 is a pretty close match for that description.

In 35 mm terms, it is a 28-280. My 18-200 in the same vein is a 27-300. Check.
It is smaller - no question and it mates with a much smaller camera body. Check.
It is sharper according to the reviews that I have seen. The 18-200 is a wonderful street lens - but not the sharpest lens I have. Check.
Both lenses are image stabilized. Check.

It is not as fast. F4-F5.8 for the Panasonic versus F3.5-F5.6 for the Nikon. But it is also not stupidly slow in comparison either.

I have a VERY hard time taking my 18-200 off my D200. If I could get the same utility from the 14-140, it sounds like a match made in Heaven.

I need to seriously consider it. Paired up with the 20mm F1.7 prime, it sounds like a wonderful street kit.

Matthew: do you have the 14-140? What do you think?

Toad Wrote:A couple of days ago, I proposed that my ideal lens would be my Nikon 18-200 F3.5-F5.6 VR except shaper, smaller, and faster. We all laughed...

Well, the Panasonic 14-140 has been called the best of the superzooms - faint praise if I've ever heard it. I like the lens, and use it from time to time, but my 20/1.7 and 7-14 get a lot more time on the camera. Frankly, it's a bad match for the GF1, being heavy with a lot of inertia to its zoom, and the lack of a grip on the camera makes it harder to control. The style of the GH1 (and all other Panasonic bodies) makes it easier to handle, but it's still quite a bit of weight to carry around. Not nearly as much as a D200-18-200, but still big for the format. Absolutely try it in the store to see if you'll like it on the little camera.

(But then, I may also be having a reaction to years of the bigger cameras.)

Optically, I haven't been blown away by the 14-140, especially at the longer focal lengths. But perhaps I haven't given it a fair shot; i just spent a day doing street and architectural photography with all three of my Panny lenses so I'll have a chance to compare the results. But of the three, I'm pretty sure that I used the 14-140 the least. It would need to be taken in and out of my camera bag, but I could swap from the 7-14 and the 20 from a jacket pocket. (Updated: I used the 20/1.7 for 55% of the photos, the 7-14 for 35%, and only 10% with the 14-140. I haven't looked through them to get the percentages of the photos that don't suck, but it probably won't change much.)

While I was out yesterday, I did pick up a manual focus AI Nikkor 135/2.8. I've only taken a few shots with it, but so far I'm quite pleased with it on the GH1, even wide open. Surprisingly small, with a built-in hood, and the fact that it's the end of the focal range where the 14-140 is the weakest doesn't hurt, either.

Thanks for the insights Matthew - food for thought. Perhaps just a longish fast prime in the 90 to 135 would do the trick better.

I'm probably going to get a 30mm Macro next.
$175.
On my APS-C sensor that = 45mm, which is very "normal", and I like the macro aspect very much.

After buying the 50mm F1.8 almost a month ago and not taking it off the body ever since, you might say that I am enamored with primes.
75mm-e is a bit too much sometimes, so I want to get a bit wider without ever having to mount the kit lens again.