Would you keep a lens you almost never use?

[sk66]

I have a Sigma 50-500 which almost never sees use, but I keep it as my "big travel lens" since it fit's in my case nicely, and I use it for "questionable situations" i.e. the middle of a river taking pictures of a heron rookerie...But 9 times out of 10 I will be using my 300-800 f/5.6 or 500 f/4.5. I also have old film body Tokinas including an 80-200 f/2.8 I love.....

But I've considered offing the 50-500 and the 80-200 to upgrade to a "better" 70/80-200 f/2.8.. primarily for built in focus motor...that will allow me to use my 2x and have a usable 400mm for "travel light" situations (the tokina will not autofocus with a converter).....I'd probably buy the sigma over the nikon...price difference for fx (D3) compatibility...

Seems like a suitable trade, minimum compromise, minimal/no "cost", kit simplification, better portability (which is why I keep the 50-500), maybe even a few extra bucks to throw towards the R1C1 kit I'm looking at.....

But I am rather fond of the 50-500. It has served me well many times....

help, I'm stuck....

[zona5101]

humm, i'd keep it but I don't usually get rid of stuff. (something about dying with the most toys...)
It has a purpose (for shots in sketchy enviornments). Maybe think of your 50-500 as a really expensive Torx screwdriver

[gturner]

My guess is that the 2.8 II VR with a x2 is going to be a FAR better bet than the 50-500.
The range of use and the IQ will knock your socks off.

[wulf]

There's something to be said for having some gear on hand for riskier situations. How would the value of the 50-500mm compare to the cost of dropping one of your other lenses in the river? Being in the process of moving at the moment, I can see the beauty of not having too much stuff but some things don't need to be much to justify their role as backup devices.

Wulf

[Henry Wilt]

Personally, I am terrible for hanging on to things even when I know it's time to change/upgrade or whatever. If something has served me well then I find it difficult to let it go. I know it's a bit of a cliché but it's often worth writing down the pro's and con's to make the decision easier. I don't know if it's the process itself that helps or actually seeing it in front of you, but I find it does tend to work (for me at least).

[gturner]

Originally Posted by wulf

There's something to be said for having some gear on hand for riskier situations. How would the value of the 50-500mm compare to the cost of dropping one of your other lenses in the river? Being in the process of moving at the moment, I can see the beauty of not having too much stuff but some things don't need to be much to justify their role as backup devices.

Wulf

That is a fair point but assumes that the 50-500 will be the one on the camera the moment a freak accident happens.... and there is an easy solution.... insurance

[Raoul Isidro]

I tend to hold on to things which I know I should have gotten rid of a long time ago but didn't.
It's not only for lenses, but on camera bodies and tripods as well!
I still keep My Nikkor non AI 35mm f2 which is a very very sharp copy for distortion free landscapes. Nikon F2AS, Canon F1n, etc. etc.
I know how you would feel, they are like your close buddies...
Don't sell!

[wulf]

It depends if it is a freak, unexpected accident or something that happens when taking a risk (like wading into the middle of a river). I put on old clothes when I go out to work in the garden; in the same way, I think it can be useful to have an old lens when heading somewhere that might be messy.

Wulf

[sk66]

Originally Posted by wulf

There's something to be said for having some gear on hand for riskier situations. How would the value of the 50-500mm compare to the cost of dropping one of your other lenses in the river? Being in the process of moving at the moment, I can see the beauty of not having too much stuff but some things don't need to be much to justify their role as backup devices.

Wulf

Cost? FREE!
It's all insured against stupidity...

[sk66]

Originally Posted by gturner

My guess is that the 2.8 II VR with a x2 is going to be a FAR better bet than the 50-500.
The range of use and the IQ will knock your socks off.

This is part of my reasoning. The 50-500 takes some nice pictures, but I don't think I would loose much using a 2x on a 70-200 f/2.8. It will be a bit shorter reach so that's a compromise.