Ever thought that you're spending too much on photography gear? May you are, but did you ever think that maybe you're spending too much because you were too cheap in the first place?

I'll explain.

**This post contains affiliate links and I will be compensated if you make a purchase after clicking on my links.

This is Why You're Spending Too Much on Photography Gear

No one ever said that photography was an inexpensive hobby or trade. Gear, software and accessories are expensive. However, you need to keep in mind that – with few exceptions – there really isn't a correlation between the amount of money you spend and the quality of photos you create.

It's very easy and tempting to overspend on photography gear. I know, because I've done it. You feel the lure of new gadgets, wonder-lenses, and magic software.

For example, let's look at my major lens collection for a full frame Nikon camera.

* Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8

* Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

* Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8

* Nikon 85mm f/1.4

* Nikon 35mm f/1.4

* Nikon 24mm f/1.4

That is a lot of wonderful and very expensive glass. Each one helps create photos so pure that you could just lick them and taste the unicorns and fairies that live inside the lenses.

Yet the bulk of my work, probably 90%, uses just two of those lenses. I rely primarily on the Nikon 24-70mm and Nikon 70-200mm lenses.

The others are specialty lenses that I pull out on occasion. The occasion is often that I feel bad that I haven't shot with them enough to rationalize their expense.

Make Sure You Understand Your Needs

I'd love to tell you that I needed those prime lenses. The truth is that I wanted them and I had the disposable income to purchase them. I can't recall if I convinced myself that I needed them, but I know for certain that I wanted them.

It's called Lens Lust.

That's the name of the disease that causes you to believe that a given lens will up your game, allow you to capture shots that you couldn't otherwise make. In other words, it's a magic bullet.

There are cases where that's true. If you're shooting wildlife or sports, you need those mega-large telephoto lenses. If you're shooting concerts, you need fast glass for low light photography.

Do you need them for portraits, though?

Let me give you a couple of examples with some photos I took a few years ago.

I shot this photo of Erica using the Nikon 85mm lens at f/1.4. It does a magnificent job of drawing your eye to her face, because everything else fades into a super creamy bokeh.

Mind you, this shot wouldn't have worked if her face was at an angle. I'd have one eye in focus and one eye blurry. Shooting a portrait at f/1.4 is a very limited use case, and you pay a lot of money to get a lens like this for the privilege.

The shot above also has a very creamy bokeh. I shot this with the Nikon 70-200mm lens. The depth of field isn't quite as narrow on this shot, but that actually helps me avoid making the mistakes possible with the razor thin depth of field on the Nikon 85mm at f/1.4.

Overall, the Nikon 70-200mm lens is more flexible, less prone to fault, and I think produces results just as beautiful as the Nikon 85mm prime.

Spending too much money on photography gear because of lens lust or pride is pretty much a wa...