Poll: do I buy a new camera lens?

[CB]

Been jonesing for camera equipment again. After an at length conversation with spacekraken, I've found the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 for about $435 CAD. Should I go for it once birthday and Christmas funds come in? I think it'd be neat for landscape shooting and astrophotgraphy. Think it'd be cool to shoot abandoned buildings under the stars with how wide it is. Any thoughts, experiences, other recommendations?
Yes, I know I said I was done with my kit for the time being but that was like three months ago.

[aperson]

One can never have too many lenses.

[CB]

@aperson Clearly this is a test of how much The Hyphen is like Old Oppo because Old Oppo would never suggest fiscal responsibility.

[MUSASHI66]

My opinion - too slow for Astro stuff.

I have a Canon 16-35, so I can see how nice it is to have a wide lens when it comes to landscape photography.

[CB]

@musashi66 What speed would you recommend for astro?

[Exage03040]

Asking the internets "Should I spend money": YES

[ttyymmnn]

@aperson said in Poll: do I buy a new camera lens?:

One can never have too many lenses.

This is the only correct take.

[S65]

oh wonderful I was looking at 50mm 1.4 USMs even though I don't have money for that right now and I already have a 40mm 2.8

[MUSASHI66]

@cb as fast as you can afford. F/1.2 is great, 1.4 is good, 1.8 is borderline too slow.

[ClassicDatsunDebate]

@cb 2.8 is kinda slow, but as you know it’s a trade off to budget. Mind you, That’s a typical internet answer and you’ll probably love it. In fact, one of my favourite lenses is my 18-70 kit that came with my D90.

[spacekraken]

@CB @MUSASHI66
F2.8 is honestly pretty fast when the lens sees sideways more than forward-you can run about 30% longer exposures with a 14 than a 16mm, 20 seconds leaves no star motion. And the fastest 14mm is F1.8 (Sigma, Canon/Nikon stop at f2.8) and triple the price. A $300 star tracker and a slow lens is way, way more fun for astro if you don't need the speed otherwise, though you'd have to merge a star photo and a foreground photo.

I loved my 14mm (same one), but just wasn't finding uses for it so it went away for some car upgrades and will probably be replaced with a 16-35 in the long run since I like shooting 24/35 too. 14mm is inherently a very specific use lens, so hard to say if you'd like it or not, but here's some full res snaps if that helps convince you one way or another! It definitely makes you think about framing and perspective in a way even something like a 17mm doesn't.

https://imgur.com/a/Ua7O72a

Finally, first tenant of photo gear does hold true: One can never have too many lenses...

[Smallbear]

@cb I've been looking at lenses off and on, but the only thing I use my "real" camera for anymore is sports photography. And fast lenses are MANY Canuckistan pesos. Plus, I have some available to be borrowed, so...

[Italia]

@cb I like my 14-30 for my z6 so go for it. On a fun side note I just bought a vintage 500mm tamron mirror lens. It's like a telescope with donut shaped bokeh. In mint condition for 89 dollars! It's practically impossible to hand hold. Super fun.

[kleebrz]

keh.com is your friend

[gmctavish]

@cb I'm pretty sure my dad has that lens for his D850. Kinda thing that doesn't get used often, but for the once or twice a year it's the right tool for the job, he's glad he has it.
On the other hand, I bought a 10-20mm or something Sigma a few years ago, and I don't think I've used it since maybe 8 months after I bought it? In other words, try to buy a good used one so you take less of a depreciation hit if you don't use it as much as you think and wind up selling it.

[Danny Korecki]

If you can splurge, sure.

I have a basic Canon DSLR, at events I see so many with $10k in camera gear who still live in their parents basements. Don't buy gear to negatively affect your life.

[CB]

@danny-korecki I've already spent far too much on camera gear in the last year and a half. But my house fund is going up because I make a good salary, so... another lens won't break me. I hope.

[Danny Korecki]

@cb then by all means, splurge away!

[CB]

@danny-korecki fortunately, camera reviews have already said the lens is "eh". So I guess I'll save my money for now.

[spacekraken]

@CB wait who said it's "eh"? Mechanically kind of meh for sure (manual focus and manual aperture, then again no electronics to break). But optically I know a few folks who swear it's far better than the fancy canon 14mm L, and it's definitely super sharp.

Still, can't go wrong with something more versatile, it is the opposite of versatile haha

[Italia]

@spacekraken that seems like a lot more distortion than I am used to at 14mm, I know my nikon has built in correction for this so that is probably why I am not used to the real amount you get at 14mm. Is this a crop or full frame lens?

[spacekraken]

@italia FF. I think that's exactly what you're seeing-it tests way sharper than the canon/nikon prime 14mms (though if you have a 14-24mm I know those are outstanding) but running distortion correction inherently dulls the corners as you'd expect.