Which SLR lens of yours is basically in a state of eating ash? Why?

35- 1.4。 Because portraits are often taken, they are sometimes taken indoors, so there should be a 35- 1.4. Unfortunately, it is not used much at ordinary times. I feel that this lens is tasteless and not very easy to use, including indoors. The performance is that the composition is not good, close to it, the main body of the character is deformed, and it will affect other photographers and easily cause opinions. The same is basically true indoors. And the picture quality of this head is very average. If you really want to use this lens, the only choice is to fight and send some photos I took with this lens:

It's embarrassing to say that my film SLR and lens have been eating ash. I really have a lens in a state of eating ash, not only the lens, but also the camera. That is, I believed in the poison of a social platform and bought a film machine-Minolta X700 with lens MD50 1.4.

This group was originally bought to provide film shooting in case someone asked me to take pictures. Results Because of the cost and technical reasons, it was not well used. I always take photos with a digital camera for convenience. So this group has been eating ash.

In addition, among the digital cameras, the one I bought always eats ash in most cases. The main reason why this shot has been eating gray is because I don't have time to go out to play, and I am taking portraits most of the year. Think about it, I can't take a picture of 18-300. They are all shot with a lens of 35 1.4 or 55 1.8, so this lens is always useless.

Especially after buying Sony's camera, Canon's equipment was borrowed. Most of the time, I shoot things by myself with Sony's camera.

That's why I've been keeping the gray lens. It's a film camera, and it's a lens for traveling around the world. The reason is that the film may be small, so people are reluctant to accept this kind of photo with particularly clear picture quality (compared with digital photos), and the travel time is short. The picture quality of the lens of 18-300 is not as good as that of the camera bought later.

Which SLR lens of yours is basically in a state of eating ash? Why? Maybe many photographers bought a lot of lenses when they had a fever. The subject matter of later shooting gradually stabilized, so some shots were basically unnecessary. This is the first reason. Another reason is that some lenses with poor imaging quality in the past will make photographers stop using them after buying other lenses that can be replaced.

Although I don't have a fixed shooting theme, there are still a few shots that are in a gray state.

This is mainly a few fixed-focus lenses.

I now have more than a dozen SLR lenses, which are commonly used in a year. In detail, there are two lenses that I have never used in the past two years, one is 28 fixed focus and the other is 200 fixed focus.

28 fixed focus, the reason why I am useless is that the wide angle of this lens is not wide and the long focal length is not long. I often use wide-angle zoom instead of this lens. After all, there are still many inconveniences in using fixed-focus lenses. If I pursue the quality of fixed focus, I will use 35 fixed focus instead. After all, the difference between the two is still relatively close.

Another lens that is useless all the year round is 200 fixed focus. Because portrait photography is not my specialty, I seldom use this fixed-focus lens unless I have time to calm down and shoot flowers. But I often replace this lens with a 70-200 lens.

These are two shots that I seldom use. What about you? Which lens is seldom used?

Sword dance images, western photographers, welcome to pay attention.

From personal long-term experience, in fact, that lens has a state of eating ash. Why? The reason for eating ash is whether the theme and matching lens you shoot as a photographer are reasonable.

Because I often take pictures of landscapes, portraits of people in their fifties and eighties are almost all gray. My 50 shots are rarely used, but it is almost impossible for some photographers to eat ash.

On the contrary, I mostly use super wide-angle and telephoto lenses. I have hardly used those portraits, macro and photography, so my 50 s and 85 s are basically gray.

Blindly buying will only eat ash. Many people say that I used 70-200 for a long time and it didn't work. In fact, it's not that the lens is bad, but that I don't have the shooting needs in this area. So from the perspective of personal experience, I think eating ash is directly related to the theme of shooting, and has nothing to do with that shot.

My SLR lens won't let it eat ash. As long as I have time, I will go out and take pictures, and I won't let it eat ash, but I think there are too few lenses. If it weren't expensive, I would have bought more!

220.

No explanation.

You know that.

It's been almost a year. I bought a camera with great interest, but it didn't move. I feel a little unkind to him and plan to take him out to take pictures.

My 35F 1.4 85F 1.4, it's all eaten up.

What eats ash is 105 2.8.

My SLR is now not only a lens but also a SLR. Today's mobile phones can fully meet the daily shooting needs. I seldom use my SLR [I want to be quiet] ...