No, it's the lens

[tclune]

It's a truism that the most important piece of photography equipment is the one that's six inches behind the lens. But I'd like to have a thread on the equipment that made us think that it wasn't. I remember my reaction to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 -- it seemed to have been bathed in pixie dust. Every shot was magical. I hadn't suddenly become a photographic genius -- the lens was where the genius resided. I ended up taking more wide angle shots than any sensible person would have. It was like the lens had captured my soul. To a lesser extent, I felt that with the DX Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 lens. I think that optical engineering has matured to a point that, in these few short years, we have come to expect that every new lens will be superb, and no longer feel the magic of well-crafted kit.

In this thread, I'd like for people to share their recollections of camera equipment (lens or other) that took their breath away and made them feel that it was the gear more than them that made the magic.

 

[Doug Herr]

Leica 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R

It didn't make me a better photographer. At the risk of seeming egotistical, it demonstrated that other lenses were keeping me from my potential.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[DRwyoming]

In this thread, I'd like for people to share their recollections of camera equipment (lens or other) that took their breath away and made them feel that it was the gear more than them that made the magic.

I can probably think of more lenses that fell to the other end of the scale and made it difficult to capture satisfying images

That said, two standout lenses that come to mind are my first (and every subsequent version) 600mm f/4 that opened up new doors in terms of low light wildlife shooting and subject isolation especially in the film and early digital days where useable ISO was crazy low compared to cameras today. That and tilt shift lenses that opened up new doors in terms of angling the plane of best focus.

 

[NorthernFocus]

The Nikon 500 PF. Combined IQ and the freedom offered by the small/light but quality construction. I remember opening the box and thinking how much it looked and felt like a miniature version of the 500 f4E. At that time I was shooting the 500 f4G and sold it within a year because is simply never left the shelf any more. That's really the only lens I've owned that was a huge step change for me. Yes now we've come to expect that. When I got the 400 4.5 my reaction was meh... Yeah, OK, but nothing grand.

 

[Nimi]

Leica 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R

It didn't make me a better photographer. At the risk of seeming egotistical, it demonstrated that other lenses were keeping me from my potential.

View attachment 76201



View attachment 76203

View attachment 76204

View attachment 76205

View attachment 76208​

Beautiful. I don't think anyone makes lenses like Leica. Subjects simply pop.

 

[Nimi]

Great thread. I'd have to say the new Z 85/1.2 is the most recent addition that caused a "wow." The other two that always deliver for me over-and-above my expectations are the Z 14-24/2.8 and 70-200/2.8.

 

[ARClark]

I can probably think of more lenses that fell to the other end of the scale and made it difficult to capture satisfying images

That said, two standout lenses that come to mind are my first (and every subsequent version) 600mm f/4 that opened up new doors in terms of low light wildlife shooting and subject isolation especially in the film and early digital days where useable ISO was crazy low compared to cameras today. That and tilt shift lenses that opened up new doors in terms of angling the plane of best focus.

Well said. I felt the same way with my first 500 f/4. The ability to isolate a subject and render a blah background into wonderful bokeh was, and is, exciting.

 

[KurtH]

It's the somewhat recent subject detection focus technologies for me. The number of keepers and the quality of the photos went way up for me when I started using it, and even more when I started to learned it. There was a short-lived moment when I thought I'm getting so much better as a photographer...but that was so far from the truth. It was/is the technology that gave me a bump.

I'm hoping to grow into that technology so I can take some of the credit in the future

 

[jeffnles1]

For me, it was the Nikon D5100 which was the first DSLR I had owned. Prior to that I was still shooting film. The quality of images, the immediate feedback of if I captured the shot, the ability to use software tools to accomplish in seconds what would have taken a long time in a darkroom, all of this added up just caused my jaw to drop. I never looked back toward film from that day onward. Having shot film for 30 years, I'm still amazed at digital photography.

 

[bleirer]

According to another thread here people think it's like telling a chef their food is good because they have a good stove or good pots and pans. We can't have it both ways, or can we?

 

[ssheipel]

The 300 pf (got it first) and then the 500 pf. Had no idea I could take photos that sharp, all other things being equal. With the 300 especially (when still shooting the D3) I kept taking comparison shots switching out lenses for the same subject shots taken seconds apart LOL

 

[MrFotoFool]

When I was younger and poorer, I lived paycheck to paycheck working at a photo lab. This was in the days of film photography. I had a consumer Canon EF 100-300 f4.5-5.6 that was fine for what it was, but I always desired an 80-200 f2.8 . At one point the lab I worked at started carrying a few lenses and they had a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for $750 but even that was out of my reach. Then a coworker had a Canon 80-200 f2.8 (the original autofocus version that was black) that he was selling for $600 and I was able to make payments on it. That lens opened up a new world for me. I have upgraded models since then, first to Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 IS (after I went digital with 5Dii), then to Nikon 70-200E when I switched to D850, and most recently to Nikon Z 70-200 when I switched to Z8. Throughout the years, a 70-200 (or 80-200) f2.8 has always been my favorite and most used lens.

 

[Nimi]

According to another thread here people think it's like telling a chef their food is good because they have a good stove or good pots and pans. We can't have it both ways, or can we?

Great chefs use great knives. Corrolation without casuality.

 

[Calson]

When I saw prints made by my wife using her 6x6 Pentax MF camera and lenses they were substantially sharper and more immersive than prints I made from 35mm chrome film with my Nikon DSLR camera. One felt like they were viewing the scene first hand.

I did not see anything comparable until I bought the Nikon 15mm underwater only lens for the Nikonos underwater camera. The lens was designed to provide maximum image quality and correction when used underwater and could not be used on land unlike all the other UW lenses. Looking at a print one felt like they were in the water and observing the scene directly.

 

[tclune]

According to another thread here people think it's like telling a chef their food is good because they have a good stove or good pots and pans. We can't have it both ways, or can we?

"Do I contradict myself? / Very well, then I contradict myself, / (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" --Walt Whitman

 

[Woodyg3]

Another vote for the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Best lens I've ever owned.

 

[BlackRockArt]

It's a truism that the most important piece of photography equipment is the one that's six inches behind the lens. But I'd like to have a thread on the equipment that made us think that it wasn't. I remember my reaction to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 -- it seemed to have been bathed in pixie dust. Every shot was magical. I hadn't suddenly become a photographic genius -- the lens was where the genius resided. I ended up taking more wide angle shots than any sensible person would have. It was like the lens had captured my soul. To a lesser extent, I felt that with the DX Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 lens. I think that optical engineering has matured to a point that, in these few short years, we have come to expect that every new lens will be superb, and no longer feel the magic of well-crafted kit.

In this thread, I'd like for people to share their recollections of camera equipment (lens or other) that took their breath away and made them feel that it was the gear more than them that made the magic.

To a certain degree, it's the lens-and-body. I wouldn't argue with anybody who dismisses the importance of the right tools for different jobs, for example, for indoor live performance, an F/4 lens would struggle mightily, a F/2.8 would make life a lot easier.

Oliver

 

[MatthewK]

D500 + 500PF. I had shot Canon before that, and the AF capabilities of the Nikon were so awesome. Coupled with the mind boggling 500PF, my photography was taken to a whole new level. Best time I’ve had since starting this hobby, though the Z8+600PF are awfully close to matching that feeling.

 

[bleirer]

"Do I contradict myself? / Very well, then I contradict myself, / (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" --Walt Whitman

I am in the "the gear is very important" camp. I just thought it ironic how many folks jumped on the thread where they were insulted when somebody asked them what gear they had. To me quality gear is the 'necessary but not sufficient' condition they taught us about in logic class way back in university days.

 

[Nimi]

I am in the "the gear is very important" camp. I just thought it ironic how many folks jumped on the thread where they were insulted when somebody asked them what gear they had. To me quality gear is the 'necessary but not sufficient' condition they taught us about in logic class way back in university days.

100%. I don't think I'd be making a living doing this w/o fast, optically-superior lenses. Bodies for my type of work are less important, but only in the sense that I could use a 10 year old D4 or a 1Dx with similar outputs.

 

[Doug Herr]

Beautiful. I don't think anyone makes lenses like Leica. Subjects simply pop.

The rich color, full tonal range, ability to hold detail in highlights and shadows and the image detail available when a lens is diffraction-limited at full aperture are what spoiled me for other lenses. The Sony 600 GM is the closest I found in a modern non-Leica lens.

 

[Nimi]

The rich color, full tonal range, ability to hold detail in highlights and shadows and the image detail available when a lens is diffraction-limited at full aperture are what spoiled me for other lenses. The Sony 600 GM is the closest I found in a modern non-Leica lens.

I'm told that the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 is also outstanding. My favorite portrait photographer Phil Sharp uses it with his GFX100. Might rent to test out since the Z lenses can't be adapted to anything.

 

[John Woodworth]

I'm always surprised thrilled by the clarity of the images from the Z 50mm f1.2.

 

[jeffnles1]

Great chefs use great knives. Corrolation without casuality.

And I have trouble boiling water without burning it but I have really nice knives. I like fine tools and sharp kitchen knives. haha, guess my photography is just a little better than my cooking.

 

[jhallettbc]

It's a truism that the most important piece of photography equipment is the one that's six inches behind the lens. But I'd like to have a thread on the equipment that made us think that it wasn't. I remember my reaction to the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 -- it seemed to have been bathed in pixie dust. Every shot was magical. I hadn't suddenly become a photographic genius -- the lens was where the genius resided. I ended up taking more wide angle shots than any sensible person would have. It was like the lens had captured my soul. To a lesser extent, I felt that with the DX Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 lens. I think that optical engineering has matured to a point that, in these few short years, we have come to expect that every new lens will be superb, and no longer feel the magic of well-crafted kit.

In this thread, I'd like for people to share their recollections of camera equipment (lens or other) that took their breath away and made them feel that it was the gear more than them that made the magic.

I'm with you on the 14-24 lens. It is magical but in spite of that I recently sold it because I hardly ever used it. Way too heaving for a travel lens. The other is the 105 f1.4. It is incredibly sharp wide open and I can take the best portraits ever with that lens. It's the lens, not me.