|
|
|
|
Generally this is an excuse. A photographer who wants an image will figure out a way to get the picture with the lenses they have. Yes, there will be limitations but using the excuse that you don't own a new "Gizmoflex 1000 f/0.001" lens as a reason for not photographing or getting a number of images you want us usually just that, an excuse.
Think I am kidding? Bill Ratcliffe, an excellent nature shooter from Orem, UT had thirteen Audubon covers, numerous photo essays and books published over a period of years. One thing all he images had in common was that they were photographed with one old(1940's vintage) Burke & James wooden view camera. Bill used one lens, six sheet film holders(12 images) and hand processed the Ektachromes in his basement after dark. He even had 4x5 images, full frame, of a Snowy Egret taken with this rig.
No matter the gear you can usually make it work for 95% of all your photography when you have to. All of it has limitations but as long as your camera gear is capable of taking a sharp image it can be used.
Yep, I hear it already. "But I photograph wildlife", or "my needs are special". Pure baloney. Certain types of photography will benefit greatly with specialized lenses, but to preclude shooting that type of work entirely while using 'no lens' as an excuse is foolish. If you want to photograph the subject, learn to do so within the limitations of your photographic equipment.
If you do that and hone your technique and talent your results when you finally get the coveted lens will be even better.
Face it, if you are getting mediocre results now, what makes you think this will suddenly change with the purchase of a new 600 f/4.0 autofocus for $10,000? You will only get more expensive mediocre images. Reality is that you will probably get even worse images due to the fact that expectations of a miracle fail to materialize. You have a very expensive lesson, one learned over and over by photographers the world over.
Without solid technique and hard work coupled with talent, good images don't happen regularly. No new lens can make you better. Just as buying a new Porsche doesn't qualify you to race at LeMans, buying a new lens doesn't put you on par with the photogs at Sports Illustrated. These guys all got where they are, race drivers or top photogs, with an investment in time and effort helped along by the constant honing of the talent they had. Finally it all came together and they were able to get the better equipment they needed to move to that higher level.
Give a newcomer to photography a Nikon F5, a 600 f/4 and watch them quickly take up another hobby. Try teaching Drivers Education in an Indy Car and watch how fast kids drop out.(these things are not user friendly).
So, what to do? Learn with what you have. Hone the talent. Get good enough that you can tell when to open up a half stop or close down a stop while composing in the viewfinder. You view the subject from edge to edge in the frame, almost subconsciously moving a foot to the left as a small twig interrupts the clean out of focus background you want, while at the same time framing the main subject a bit off center and low in the image for increased tension in the framing. But then you find yourself in a bad position. With the lens you have, your 200, you need to be about 6 to 8 feet closer to get the bird large enough in the frame to complete your composition.
What do you do? Change to a longer lens? You don't have one? So, shoot it anyway, using excellent technique, slow film and perfect exposure and then crop in the darkroom.(or have your custom printer do it for you).
If this scenario happens to you as it does to most of us you probably have the normal reaction. "If only I had a bigger lens..."
The question is, how often does it actually happen? How often do you find yourself really in need of that longer lens? In a situation where planning could not have placed you the 6-8 feet closer so you could have made the image with the lens you have?
If it happens a couple of times it is no big deal. But if you find yourself in this situation over & over again, it is probably time to think seriously about getting the newer lens. You go back to the location and take a look at it and discover that if you were to get there a half hour earlier, sit closer in a camo blind or under an old sleeping bag cover, you could get the image without much trouble. This makes it a toss-up as to whether or not you actually need the lens.(read here-Need vs Want)
But, you go back and check again. You weren't close enough and the reason is simple. A drop off prevents a closer approach. A rushing river current lies in front of you. The tide is coming in when the behavior you want happens. Or(one I find every now & then), you can get as close as you want but the rattlesnake gets really pissed off when you get close & for some strange reason you feel nervous about that(in spite of the fact that most normal adults bit by a rattler may get a bit sick but almost never die).
A number of things can prevent your closer approach from personal safety to umpires and referees to impossible conditions. Question is, how often does it really happen? Enough to justify the lens that will help overcome the problem? Once of twice isn't a problem, it's life. Ten or more times in a six month stretch gets to be a bit much. If you don't want to miss the images and cropping isn't a viable alternative, you start seriously looking at a new lens to solve the problem.
Another scenario, you are at the Grand Canyon and the view is great. A double rainbow appears, a jutting rock formation frames the scene and an Eagle drifts by and hangs in the updraft, paying you no attention. It is perfect!
You go to step back a couple of feet to capture it & remember quickly that you are on a ledge and if you move back six inches you take a step down(about 600 feet or so). So, you shoot the eagle and then re-frame and shoot the other elements and go home and put it all together in Photoshop. All the while cursing your lack of a 24mm f/2.8 that would have nailed the photo perfectly.
Happens only this once? If you frequent places like this, not likely. If it happens only once or twice a year, again you can live with it. Maybe you won't like it, but you can live with it. If it happens a number of times(for some of us that once-with an image like I described-would be enough) it is a sure sign you need a new lens.
My personal indicator that I actually NEED(as opposed to want) a new lens is based on how many images I miss because I didn't or don't have the proper tool to record what I see and feel. If it starts to stack up, I look at what lens will allow me to overcome the problem.
It is as simple as that.
If you constantly travel with a backpack your choices will be different than that of the person who seldom gets more than a hundred feet from the car. You may consider lens weight a major factor. You choose the 24 f/2.8 while the other guy chooses the f/1.4 version. A lot enters into this one.
The type of photography you do helps make the choice for you at least as far as focal length. Wanting a Prime 600 for $10,000 and realistically being able to justify it are very separate issues. Wanting all Canon L series prime lenses and being able to justify the cost are the same problem. Wanting ultimate performance yet never printing a photo bigger than 5x7 and occasionally 8x10 means you are paying for quality you will probably never use. So, I make what many consider a blasphemous statement here: Look at aftermarket lenses. A great many of them work very well, last a long time and take excellent photographs.
Yep, Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Vivitar and others out there work well for many photographers-some of whom may surprise you.
Bill Fox, one of the Team Photogs for the San Francisco 49ers(American Football) won NFL Photographer of the year with a great image of Jerry Rice diving for a ball with a defender diving over his back. A great image(entitled Flying Rice) which had the outstretched hands of Jerry Rice reaching for the football just inches away. The is image was taken with an older single touch Tokina zoom lens. In the photo, on the sideline across the field, in plain view, are a number of other photographers with bigger lenses, WATCHING the play. They had lenses capable of getting the image from another angle yet they weren't shooting, they were spectators. The Greatest lens in the world is useless if you don't use it, folks.
Bill knows how to use his gear and he got the image. When you see it, see if you can tell the brand of lens he used. If I didn't tell you, you would have no idea at all or would guess that if he uses Canon gear, it would be a Canon lens.
Nope, an aftermarket lens works well because Bill Fox is an excellent shooter and is familiar with his gear and actually uses it rather than sitting around making excuses and pining for a new gizmoflex wonderglass 1000 that will solve all his problems. Tamron and the rest will do a very good job for most of us if we learn to use them.
How many times have you wished you had a camera with you(any camera) to quickly shoot something that was a surprise event or happening? Would you have turned it down if it had the 'wrong brand' lens? No, you would shoot with whatever it had & live with it. Even if it would be 'better' with the prime L series or ED lens.
Learn to use what you have to the maximum and you maximize your possibilities. You also get better and better as a photographer so when you do get the new glass you will be in a good position to actually use it.
I get frustrated by those I see(Yellowstone in late Sept. with elk is a great example) who buy expensive gear & don't know how to use it. Put Art Wolfe out there with an old beat up 80-200 zoom and an idiot with his new 600 auto everything & Art will come back with better images 99 times out a 100.(the 100th image is the other guys result from banging away with the motor drive and 30 rolls of film). Talent plays a big part in getting good results.
New lenses are no answer if you don't know what you are doing. I will say it again, mediocre photographers make mediocre pictures-big expensive lenses just make more expensive mediocre pictures for these jokers.
But, if you actually need the lens, get the best one you can afford. After all, the lens takes the photo. If you normally work with autofocus, get the autofocus lenses designed to work with your system whether prime or aftermarket. Scrimp & save like hell(forgo the Dr. Peppers for awhile) and get the best glass you can afford. Then use it at its best apertures, on a steadying platform of some type(tripod, tree stump, shirt wadded on the windowsill) with the sharpest film you can. Take away all the excuses and go for great quality. Push yourself in the taking of your images.
Find yourself in need of a better or bigger lens for a once in a lifetime experience? Rent one! But, play it smart. Rent the exotic glass at least twice-possible three times or more. You get the once in a lifetime chance to shoot from the sidelines at a 49ers game. If you show up with the rented 400 f/2.8 and have never used anything that big, that heavy and that expensive you will have a great chance of getting very expensive trash can fillers as a result. Rent the lens a few weeks before and practice with it. Suddenly getting new stuff for an important event is an invitation to disaster.
You may 'need' the lens, but what good does it do if all your experience is with your 135mm f/3.5. Get on the sidelines with a 13 pound monster and you will be so worried about dropping it and so unused to the very narrow field of view you will be lucky to even find the players in the viewfinder, much less get good images with the lens. No, you may actually need a lens of this size to get the images you want, but (and this is a big one when buying new gear) is your technique up to what you are buying?
Moving up to a new lens as a natural progression in the learning curve makes sense. Suddenly getting equipment that scares you is foolish. Remember the Grand Canyon example? You have it happen & vow 'never again', so you drop the $2000 or so and get the Canon 14mm. No matter that your only experience to date is the 35-70 zoom. Suddenly you have your feet in half your images. No horizon line is level. And, someone told you all good nature photogs polarize & so you do & have these dark blue/black lines in the sky as a result of shooting with one in the wrong instances. In short, you are in over your head. Then, you go back to the Grand Canyon, to the same ledge you had to jump a 5 foot chasm to get to, and there he is, your Eagle and this time a thunderstorm in the background with fabulous lightening strikes that go on for seconds with each hit. On goes the 14mm and as you look in the viewfinder it seems all too tiny. So, being used to the 35mm focal length, you want it a touch bigger and step forward...
Get the point?
Going to extremes is usually a rude awakening, not an answer.
There is a big difference when there is a big jump in focal lengths. The really big lens for someone who doesn't regularly find a real need for one is usually a waste of money. Same with the super wide angle lenses. If you don't find yourself missing images due to not having a different lens(and can't generally reposition yourself due to reasons other than laziness) you don't really need another lens.
That doesn't mean you won't want one though, just that you don't actually 'need' one.
Whether it makes sense or not, if you want one and can afford it, get it. You may find you like it and will learn to use it. At worst you can always resell it after learning you don't 'see' the world that way. Almost every pro will tell you of lenses they just had to have that they ended up dumping anyway because, for whatever reason, it just didn't really do what they anticipated. Good glass too, not just make do lenses.
Before you run out to fill the camera bag with new glass though, look carefully at what you shoot, how you shoot and how much you can really carry. Needing a lens a few times, even if you missed a fabulous image, may not be worth it to you as it is just one more thing to carry. I tend to agree with John Shaw(I was really glad his first Nature Photo book came out years ago is much of it parallels what most nature pro's have known for a long time) on lens selection. I generally carry a 24, 100 macro and a 300 or so, along with a teleconverter, extension tube or two and a multicoated Nikon/Canon close up screw in filter. Few other filters for color but lots of film.
Keeping it simple helps a lot. I find I tend to 'see' my world with these focal lengths while other feel more comfortable with their different kits. They get good images and so do I. Choose what is comfortable for you, not what I or anyone else uses. Buy the best quality you can afford for the type of shooting you do. But most importantly, shoot with what you have at its best. That will get you good images. Then, when it is time to get another lens you will know it. And remember, no matter what you buy or how much it costs, the manufacturers will come out with something newer before long. Just learn to use what you have very, very well & it won't matter.
Information for the attached images.
Dew covered bug: This was shot with a 200 micro nikkor, tripod mounted. Macro photography is the one area where the specialty lenses shine. They are designed to be used close up and give their best performance when used that way. While you can get very good results with mild telephoto lenses and a close up filter, or by using an extension tube for closer focusing, a true macro lens will work even better. If you only shoot close ups occasionally the filter will work well. But, if you do a lot of it, save for the specialty lens. I find I use the 200 micro more and more as time goes on. Its longer working distance is really handy in dew and frost covered meadows where nearby grass & shrubs can disturb the insect or scene you want to photograph close up. It is light and handles well, but it still small for rattlesnakes(for me at least).
White Faced Ibis:
This is with a 600 f/4 and a 1.4 teleconverter and an extension tube to allow closer focusing. Heavy and cumbersome, I use this combination a lot. It allows images I can't get any other way with wildlife as well as sports. Learning to use this type of lens can be a trial for some due to weight as well as cost. Getting into a dew covered field, sitting the spray of a waterfall or light mist, walking on icy trails can all be very worrisome if you over protect your expensive gear. I don't advocate treating gear shabbily, but you buy it to photograph with so don't be afraid to use it.
Images such as this can be gotten with smaller lenses but that requires you to be even closer. Most of the time with these birds that is impossible. So the long lens does allow some images to be taken you would not otherwise get. It is a real trade off: weight, size and cost weighed against the desire to get certain images. Only you can decide if it is worth it. But, there are good reasons this is a mainstay for heavy duty wildlife, bird and sports photography. The lens delivers.