No, it's the lens

[Whiskeyman]

For me, it was a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5. Especially when paired with the Nikon FE and low-ISO color film.

 

[Icarus]

The Nikon 300mm f4 PF lens and Sony's 70-200mm f2.8 II. Loved both of these lenses.

 

[Jamie Baker]

The Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF is just incredible. So sharp, so light, it’s just perfect for birding.

 

[jhallettbc]

The Nikon 500 f/5.6 PF is just incredible. So sharp, so light, it’s just perfect for birding.

I couldn't agree more. Super practical but I don't love it, lol.

 

[Lance B]

I don't think I can really say one thing as there are so many great pieces of equipment that can make great photos from mediocre scenes or subjects. I guess if I had to say one lens, it would be the 400 f2.8E FL VR, but it means leaving out many other great lenses I've used. The versatility of the 400 f2.8 by adding any of the 3 TC's yet still deliver exemplary photos.

A photo with each of the TC's and bare:

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 2x TCIII = 800mm, 1/400s f/8.0 at 800.0mm iso3600

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 1.7x TCII = 680mm, 1/3200s f/6.3 at 650.0mm iso900

Z7 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 1.4x TCIII = 560mm, 1/250s f/5.6 at 560.0mm iso180

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR, 1/640s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso1600

 

[Len Shepherd]

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.

My choice would be a Leitz lens on a Leitz projector over 50 years ago - when I "discovered" some slides previously viewed on a cheap Hanimex slide projector were not as shard as I had thought.

 

[StefanSC]

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.

Never had the situation where I felt that the gear made the magic.

I did have a few "WOW" moments where I got a piece of gear and felt that it opened up so many possibilities that I didn't have before that it was going to take my photography to a new level ...

The short list of these "wow" moments:

Nikon 180mm f2.8 AF-D.
Nikon 300mm f4 AF-D
Nikon D810.
Samyang 135mm f2.0
Panasonic-Leica 50-200mm f2.8-f4
Olympus 300mm f4.

 

[Rixpx]

The lens that surprised me was the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro. Decent enough for macro, but it was one of sharpest, contrastiest general purpose lenses I’ve owned. When I switched to mirrorless, I traded most of my F mount lenses on newer gear. I wish I’d kept that one.

 

[StevieJSmall]

58mm f/0.95, the Noct.

Incredible lens!

 

[O]

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.

300 2.8 VR II

600 F4

200-500 is so good especially for the money at the time.

14-24 love it, fast sharp accurate.

70-200 FL defiantly so so incredibly impressive, my main work horse.

Ziess 100 F2 macro, yes even for action, yes its manual, but set it to infinity then hang on.

50mm Ziess 1.4

16mm F2.8 Fish Eye Nikon super sharp and so creative if you know how to use it.

50mm 1.8S is amazingly good.

And for the highly commended award, the very faithful all rounder................ drum roll 28-300 purely for versatility.

The varying level of outcomes still depend largely on how well you use these tools.

Only an opinion

 

[fredheidepriem]

I don't think I can really say one thing as there are so many great pieces of equipment that can make great photos from mediocre scenes or subjects. I guess if I had to say one lens, it would be the 400 f2.8E FL VR, but it means leaving out many other great lenses I've used. The versatility of the 400 f2.8 by adding any of the 3 TC's yet still deliver exemplary photos.

A photo with each of the TC's and bare:

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 2x TCIII = 800mm, 1/400s f/8.0 at 800.0mm iso3600

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 1.7x TCII = 680mm, 1/3200s f/6.3 at 650.0mm iso900

Z7 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 1.4x TCIII = 560mm, 1/250s f/5.6 at 560.0mm iso180

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR, 1/640s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso1600

I feel the same on this lens. I showed a good friend a shot I had just taken with it on my D810 and he remarked “you can see their bones with that!”

 

[O]

I feel the same on this lens. I showed a good friend a shot I had just taken with it on my D810 and he remarked “you can see their bones with that!”

I am in the similar mind with my 300 2.8 VR II, AUD $5900 new at the time i was originally going to buy the 400 2.8 G but for the size, weight, cost, i dropped 100mm for the smaller lighter 300 2.8 VR II, to this day it still delivers, and it works great with TCs especially if i use a D4S D5 D6, on the Z9 D850 stunning, file wise there is arguably only a tiny fraction difference with D850 Z9 and the my old D3X in good light when reviewed on a computer monitor.

Same when using the 70-200 FL little difference file wise between them.

I do respect where Nikon is going and building their lens collection and they are making some amazing pieces.

Because i have lower and spasmodic need for exotic glass its cheaper to rent than own,

a) renting i can have what i want any time i want it LOL.
b) i can utilize the funds elsewhere for making money.

 

[Ken Miracle]

Being a birder in habitat that always left 600mm to short while the Z9 was cool the Z800pf is what made me sell all of my DSLR's and f mount lenses.

The new Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 model A058Z is a very special lens and makes my projects indoors at church where no supplemental lighting can be used a breeze. Then this morning on the Christmas Bird Count I used it for twilight ID shots well before sunrise and before lift off and dispersal of a large concentraiton of ducks and geese at a pond in Boise. I have never been able to get shots that early that allowed me to ID and count the waterfowl.

So for a bird nerd these two lenses combined with the Z9 make me far more efficient !

 

[Vincent_VdB]

I really loved my AF-S 70-200mm E FL f/2.8 lens. The lens was sharp, beautiful colours and rendered the background nicely.
https://live.staticflickr.com/801/40848303171_560e6cf120_b.jpg

At this moment am I in love with my Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S, I mean, what is there not to love about this lens.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52863174910_71e15b4d98_b.jpg

And where there are lenses shining are there stinkers as well and for me was that a Sigma 150-500mm lens I bought +10 years ago.

 

[Lance B]

I am in the similar mind with my 300 2.8 VR II, AUD $5900 new at the time i was originally going to buy the 400 2.8 G but for the size, weight, cost, i dropped 100mm for the smaller lighter 300 2.8 VR II, to this day it still delivers, and it works great with TCs especially if i use a D4S D5 D6, on the Z9 D850 stunning, file wise there is arguably only a tiny fraction difference with D850 Z9 and the my old D3X in good light when reviewed on a computer monitor.

Same when using the 70-200 FL little difference file wise between them.

I do respect where Nikon is going and building their lens collection and they are making some amazing pieces.

Because i have lower and spasmodic need for exotic glass its cheaper to rent than own,

a) renting i can have what i want any time i want it LOL.
b) i can utilize the funds elsewhere for making money.

Gotta agree about the 300 f2.8G VRII, a stunning lens and I wish I still had mine. As you say, it worked brilliantly with all the TCs', like my 400 f2.8E FL VR.

 

[marlowtravelsoften]

500pf

 

[DougC]

500 f4 AF-S. Took a bit of time to learn how to use it properly and appreciate great background rendering and perspective. It was a huge investment at the time but well worth it.

 

[O]

I don't think I can really say one thing as there are so many great pieces of equipment that can make great photos from mediocre scenes or subjects. I guess if I had to say one lens, it would be the 400 f2.8E FL VR, but it means leaving out many other great lenses I've used. The versatility of the 400 f2.8 by adding any of the 3 TC's yet still deliver exemplary photos.

A photo with each of the TC's and bare:

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 2x TCIII = 800mm, 1/400s f/8.0 at 800.0mm iso3600

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 1.7x TCII = 680mm, 1/3200s f/6.3 at 650.0mm iso900

Z7 + 400 f2.8E FL VR + 1.4x TCIII = 560mm, 1/250s f/5.6 at 560.0mm iso180

D810 + 400 f2.8E FL VR, 1/640s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso1600

Very Nice, your preaching to the converted, enjoyed your outcome.

 

[Ken Miracle]

300 2.8 VR II

600 F4

200-500 is so good especially for the money at the time.

14-24 love it, fast sharp accurate.

70-200 FL defiantly so so incredibly impressive, my main work horse.

Ziess 100 F2 macro, yes even for action, yes its manual, but set it to infinity then hang on.

50mm Ziess 1.4

16mm F2.8 Fish Eye Nikon super sharp and so creative if you know how to use it.

50mm 1.8S is amazingly good.

And for the highly commended award, the very faithful all rounder................ drum roll 28-300 purely for versatility.

The varying level of outcomes still depend largely on how well you use these tools.

Only an opinion

Thinking of the amazing images the 28-300 gave me on my D4S in Africa I would have to second that opinion.

 

[Doug Herr]

It's like asking when does a house become a home. At the fundamental level a house is x number of sticks and x number of rocks. But at some point in the lived experience those sticks and rocks become utility and charm and memories. Same with that "magical" lens. It's just so much of glass and so much of metal and plastic until we associate it with experiences.

I suspect you haven’t found your magical lens yet. For myself the rich color, full gradation, ability to hold detail in the brightest highlight and deepest shadows and image detail as far as the pixels allowed inspired me to use my magical lens, whenever possible.

 

[O]

Thinking of the amazing images the 28-300 gave me on my D4S in Africa I would have to second that opinion.

Hi Ken, agree absolutely that's an amazing combo, the 28-300, i also loved it on the D4s especially, and the D5, then on the D850 with the grip.
Even works brilliantly on the Z9, DF, and the D7100 pixel density.........is amazing in good light.

It has allowed me to grab shots quickly while others where changing lenses and missed moments.

I remember doing a Australia day Rodeo, i would hold the D4s hammer down on 25 focus points and zoom the 28-300 in and out constantly keeping the subject tightly filled in the frame, what a combo what a result.

I got lovely results traveling through New Zealand then Tasmania with the 28-300 on the DF (D4 sensor), i would at times switch from FX to DX, i also carried a 50mm 1.4 Ziess (WOW) and my 16 mm F2.8 fish eye i absolutely love. Everything fitted into one small sling strap camera bag and was only ever cabin luggage.

But the 28-300 with a 50 mm 1.4 wow some of the photos in that southern light..............

I think even if i had to just have the one lens as a last resort the focal range versatility makes it a real hard lens to pass up and in DX mode gives another brilliant option.

I don't know if there are any alternatives available, the lens has made some wonderful memories.

I actually am considering garbing a mint one second hand hardly used for little money..........

Only an opinion

 

[O]

Gotta agree about the 300 f2.8G VRII, a stunning lens and I wish I still had mine. As you say, it worked brilliantly with all the TCs', like my 400 f2.8E FL VR.

At the time of getting 300 I was told that Nikon used the formula of the 300 2.8 as a base design for over 40 years.

They also used the 85mm 1.4 as a QC standard bench mark ? in production of lenses.

I had the 200 F2, 200-400 F4, 600 F4, 400 F2.8 all out in the Nikon car park one at a time, i spent half the day there LOL It got to the point where i was getting dizzy doing endless A B samples using my D3X then considered the best DSLR optically in the world, till the D850 arrived LOL and may i say i feel on good glass the gap isn't that wide if at all in cases.

The F2 just brilliant, excelled slightly in lower light shadow ares, but the focal range was just a little to much of a compromise by being a whisker to short for what i do.

The 400 F2.8 G was my preferred focal range and and choice, the results were stunning, just the price tag compared to the 300 and extra size and weight came into play.

The 600 F4 was amazing and did basically at 600mm F4 what the F2.8 did at 300 or 400mm, so cost, size and weight and regular application came into consideration.

The 200-400 F4 was versatile, didn't like the Tc 1.4 as much, large heavy and expensive, optically while excellent just didn't have the F2 8 magic micro contrast in detail and colour i felt because of slightly less light gathering capacity and being a zoom, slightly more a fairer weather tool.

So Nikon always ever so kind and supportive wanted to close for the day LOL, i had to make a choice or i felt i never would.

Whta a coal face experince.

For size, weight, cost, optics, tolerance of the 1.4 or 2x Tcs, the magic F2.8, and with only 100mm being the largest compromise, the 300 2.8 VR II was made available at one of their dealers in my area for collection for AUD $5900, today the RRP is around $9500 for that actual lens.

My 300 2.8 VR II i use it for anything, portature, sports, all action, wild life, landscape, yep lanscape.
in 95% of cases i use it at F2.8 only largly what its designed for i feel.

If a new one came out today it would be FL, it would be stunningly amazing, lighter smaller, but the price tag would be up there wildly.

Used the lenses are getting very cheap, the NON VR II version used sells for rediclouse money now, the differnce is notcible between the VR and VR II especially with the colour.

I mean grabing one of these or the rpeviouse model used is a steal.

The only issue i find with Nikon exotic FX DSLR primes is if you dont use them regualrly the focus motors get squeally and eventauly fail as the lube hardens or drys, its $1250 AUD for the 300 and even much more for the 600 with usually a long wait to get them fixed.

So unless i use expensive exotic primes very regurlay or a real lot i would rather rent as needed than own.

I sold my 600 F4 for that reason, after a focus motor dry out, my 300 2.8 VR II had a sibatical duing the Covid eara which did the focus motor in on that as well due to dry out.

I belive the newer Z exotics are different in designe so i assume the issue may be addresed.

Only an opinion

 

[Lance B]

At the time of getting 300 I was told that Nikon used the formula of the 300 2.8 as a base design for over 40 years.

They also used the 85mm 1.4 as a QC standard bench mark ? in production of lenses.

I had the 200 F2, 200-400 F4, 600 F4, 400 F2.8 all out in the Nikon car park one at a time, i spent half the day there LOL It got to the point where i was getting dizzy doing endless A B samples using my D3X then considered the best DSLR optically in the world, till the D850 arrived LOL and may i say i feel on good glass the gap isn't that wide if at all in cases.

The F2 just brilliant, excelled slightly in lower light shadow ares, but the focal range was just a little to much of a compromise by being a whisker to short for what i do.

The 400 F2.8 G was my preferred focal range and and choice, the results were stunning, just the price tag compared to the 300 and extra size and weight came into play.

The 600 F4 was amazing and did basically at 600mm F4 what the F2.8 did at 300 or 400mm, so cost, size and weight and regular application came into consideration.

The 200-400 F4 was versatile, didn't like the Tc 1.4 as much, large heavy and expensive, optically while excellent just didn't have the F2 8 magic micro contrast in detail and colour i felt because of slightly less light gathering capacity and being a zoom, slightly more a fairer weather tool.

So Nikon always ever so kind and supportive wanted to close for the day LOL, i had to make a choice or i felt i never would.

Whta a coal face experince.

For size, weight, cost, optics, tolerance of the 1.4 or 2x Tcs, the magic F2.8, and with only 100mm being the largest compromise, the 300 2.8 VR II was made available at one of their dealers in my area for collection for AUD $5900, today the RRP is around $9500 for that actual lens.

My 300 2.8 VR II i use it for anything, portature, sports, all action, wild life, landscape, yep lanscape.
in 95% of cases i use it at F2.8 only largly what its designed for i feel.

If a new one came out today it would be FL, it would be stunningly amazing, lighter smaller, but the price tag would be up there wildly.

Used the lenses are getting very cheap, the NON VR II version used sells for rediclouse money now, the differnce is notcible between the VR and VR II especially with the colour.

I mean grabing one of these or the rpeviouse model used is a steal.

The only issue i find with Nikon exotic FX DSLR primes is if you dont use them regualrly the focus motors get squeally and eventauly fail as the lube hardens or drys, its $1250 AUD for the 300 and even much more for the 600 with usually a long wait to get them fixed.

So unless i use expensive exotic primes very regurlay or a real lot i would rather rent as needed than own.

I sold my 600 F4 for that reason, after a focus motor dry out, my 300 2.8 VR II had a sibatical duing the Covid eara which did the focus motor in on that as well due to dry out.

I belive the newer Z exotics are different in designe so i assume the issue may be addresed.

Only an opinion

With the advent of the newly released Sony 300 f2.8 at 1.5kg!!! and US$6,000, I am hoping Nikon follow suit. That'd do me.

 

[O]

With the advent of the newly released Sony 300 f2.8 at 1.5kg!!! and US$6,000, I am hoping Nikon follow suit. That'd do me.

Yes Painfully spot on, i saw Sony's announcement on this lens, i think Nikon will make it a bit like the 300 PF only F2.8 ?, if Sony can do it Nikon should.

Defiantly a time to consider a strategic position LOL

Only an opinion

 

[Roaring 40s]

I shifted to Sony from Nikon, keeping just the D500. Then was underwhelmed by the A9 AF with small birds so got a 500pf for the Nikon body. It performs so well. Sharp, compact and reliable.
The body is reaching retirement age and I'm wondering about what to replace it with, to go on enjoying those advantages.
I still use pro Sony gear but am less keen these days on 4.5kg handheld.