via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Getting into mirrorless as it can be lighter and the camera and lenses are of a better quality image-wise.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Be careful with the "can be lighter" part. Many full frame mirrorless lenses are now HEAVIER than their dSLR counterparts. That weight can more than offset the weight savings of the lighter body.

To TRULY save weight in your entire kit, you have to move to a smaller format, and use lenses engineered solely for that format. Using full frame lenses on APS-C bodies was once a popular way to make "moving up" to full frame (It is a lateral move to a DIFFERENT format, not necessarily a better one) easier. But if you are going the other way, having a bag full of full frame lenses and moving to APS-C bodies you can mount those lenses on will save an insignificant amount of weight.

The Micro 4/3 format solves some of the issues. Lenses are smaller, lighter, and less costly than APS-C and full frame and medium format lenses, so you carry less for similar (not identical) performance attributes. There are some trade-offs in all directions, but if you know what you want to photograph and the circumstances in which you will work, you can choose appropriately.

JBRIII

Maybe we have an upside down pyramid here. Lots of people with non-cell phone cameras selling older lenses due to mirrorless or whatever, but fewer people interested in any camera but cell phone types. Also, and we've seen it here, people, understandably, want many times close to or even at new price for a used article. Add in people buying during Covid and now losing interest and you have a big market of used stuff and too few buyers.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Long, high IQ, good aperture FF lenses are very very expensive, delicate, heavy and difficult to wield.

Their only advantage is that they bring the subject much closer (try to photograph a tiger family with a nifty fifty... and survive). Besides that, everything left are drawbacks. That was the point of my joke that carrying a 600mm prime or zoom is like towing a 155mm howitzer gun.

They are truly niche lenses, like macro lenses, fish eyes, pan-tilt, etc. Each of them has its place, but they are, by no means, mainstream.

So, if somebody is really into wildlife photography and - better yet - gets paid for it or - even much much better - is on corporate budget, then this kind of lens is an investment.

For the rest of us, it is a liability.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

The purpose of having a telephoto lens is to bring the subject closer. If this is the photographers intension, how is it a liability? I consider my telephoto lenses assets, as I couldn't do some things I enjoy doing without them. I guess all lenses except those around 50 or 55 mm are niche lenses, which means there are a heck of a whole lot of niche lenses, and if there are so, so many niche lenses, I guess they're not all that niche after all. More like, quite common.

Have you ever used a Sigma 150-600 Sport telephoto lens? I've never heard of them being considered delicate.

lukevaliant Loc: gloucester city,n. j.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

So true! A $13,000, 600mm full frame tele is not a casual purchase. It's a special purpose tool that costs as much as couple of top-tier camera bodies. Now, if you are contracted to photograph NFL games or the Olympics... It's necessary! But if you are an average Joe or Jane who wants to photograph the grandkids at a Saturday morning soccer match, it's a stretch to justify its existence.