For the uninitiated, 'GAS' stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome...a well recognized misapprehension that the next lens, camera, light, you name it, will elevate your work to transcendence [or Avedon-cendence or Adams-cendence...etc.]
It's all too easy to fall prey to GAS...especially during the dark days of winter when more time is spent indoors thinking about shooting and comparing your work to others than actually using the equipment you have. And, to be fair, it's also well understood that a new piece of kit actually *can* give a photographer the much needed swift kick in the pants to get out and shoot!
As I've stated in past posts I have finally, pretty much*, come to the realization that *equipment* does not have any real affect on the quality of our work. All that really matters is 'f8 and be there'. You simply have to have a camera in hand, and the knowledge and ability to pre-visualize what you want to create and create it.
So imagine my chagrin today when I found myself considering the purchase of another lens. A lens I've owned previously and sold. A lens who's focal length lies inside the focal range of a number...well two...other lenses I still own. Imagine.
Above are two images taken on the same piece of land with the same camera in the same year. One was shot with a Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f3.5 SL II manual focus lens, the other with a Canon 20-35mm f2.8L. The Canon lens was introduced in 1989 and the Voigt's design has got to be at least that old. The Canon is long discontinued and was never recognized in LR. The Voigt, while still available is also not profiled in LR.
The only reason that I still own more than own more than one lens in this focal range is that I purchased the sharp new Canon 16~35 f4L for a job the other year, and have yet to let it go...mainly because the other, the aforementioned 20~35mm, is out of support and cannot be repaired should anything go wrong.
But here's the question...can you tell which is which? And I don't mean 'is one better than the other?', I mean does one have a different 'feel'...more dimensionality...more personality? Is there any reason to own either of these unusual lenses, let alone both, for the way I shoot?
Years ago I went so far down the road with prime, manual focus, 'personality' glass as to flirt with madness [well, drove myself nuts is more accurate]...and have since clawed my way back out. At this stage of my photographic journey I absolutely love having just a very few lenses and then making he most of them. I truly believe that gear has practically nothing to do wiht your success as an artist.
*But, every now and again, an old piece of German glass comes calling...
[The Canon is on the left]
[Yes, I know the Voigt is made by Cosina in Japan...but so are Leica lenses, so give me this one.]
It's all too easy to fall prey to GAS...especially during the dark days of winter when more time is spent indoors thinking about shooting and comparing your work to others than actually using the equipment you have. And, to be fair, it's also well understood that a new piece of kit actually *can* give a photographer the much needed swift kick in the pants to get out and shoot!
As I've stated in past posts I have finally, pretty much*, come to the realization that *equipment* does not have any real affect on the quality of our work. All that really matters is 'f8 and be there'. You simply have to have a camera in hand, and the knowledge and ability to pre-visualize what you want to create and create it.
So imagine my chagrin today when I found myself considering the purchase of another lens. A lens I've owned previously and sold. A lens who's focal length lies inside the focal range of a number...well two...other lenses I still own. Imagine.
Above are two images taken on the same piece of land with the same camera in the same year. One was shot with a Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f3.5 SL II manual focus lens, the other with a Canon 20-35mm f2.8L. The Canon lens was introduced in 1989 and the Voigt's design has got to be at least that old. The Canon is long discontinued and was never recognized in LR. The Voigt, while still available is also not profiled in LR.
The only reason that I still own more than own more than one lens in this focal range is that I purchased the sharp new Canon 16~35 f4L for a job the other year, and have yet to let it go...mainly because the other, the aforementioned 20~35mm, is out of support and cannot be repaired should anything go wrong.
But here's the question...can you tell which is which? And I don't mean 'is one better than the other?', I mean does one have a different 'feel'...more dimensionality...more personality? Is there any reason to own either of these unusual lenses, let alone both, for the way I shoot?
Years ago I went so far down the road with prime, manual focus, 'personality' glass as to flirt with madness [well, drove myself nuts is more accurate]...and have since clawed my way back out. At this stage of my photographic journey I absolutely love having just a very few lenses and then making he most of them. I truly believe that gear has practically nothing to do wiht your success as an artist.
*But, every now and again, an old piece of German glass comes calling...
[The Canon is on the left]
[Yes, I know the Voigt is made by Cosina in Japan...but so are Leica lenses, so give me this one.]
RSS Feed