recent good thread about GAS made me think...for sure from time to time people do find some special "magic bullet" .
What I want to ask: did you ever got some lens or camera and be able to get results that you were not able to do before with similar equipment that you already had?
For me this special lens is Leitz Summar 5cm f2: I get effects that i was not able to get with any other 50mm lens that I have.
The answer to your question is "yes" but htat does not make it a "magic bullet".
Also, there are great variations in what folks might consider "similar equipment".
Not a magic bullet, but a lens that I find I'm using above all others - An early Fujinon 135mm. Loads of room for movements, so small and light weight it pretty much stays permanently mounted on the front of my Wista.
Oh, and the RH Designs analyser/timer - Next to the enlarger, the best bit of darkroom kit I've bought and has certainly improved the quality of prints (less waste).
Darko, I'm an ignorant barbarian insensitive to the finer points. For me, if not for you, all cats are grey in the dark.
I've played with a few lenses, haven't yet found any magic bullets as you seem to mean the words among them. I have, though, found lenses that extended the range of what I could do or that gave better results than others with similar specifications.
Here's an example: my first serious camera and lens were a Nikkormat FTN and a 50/1.4 Nikkor. Second lens, a 200/4 Nikkor, let me do things that were difficult with a 50. Third lens, a 105/2.5 Nikkor, split the difference. Fourth lens, a 55/3.5 MicroNikkor, did some things better than the 55. Fifth lens, a 105/3.5 (or was it f/4?) Novoflex, was bought in the hope it would be better closeup than the 105/2.5 and would have better reach than the 55. Wrong, I couldn't use it effectively. Sixth lens, a 135/2.8 Auto-Makro-TeleQuinon, was bought for the same reason. It was better closeup than the 105/2.8, not as good as the 55 but had better reach, and was, overall, much worse than my eight lens, the 105/4 MicroNikkor that replaced it. Seventh lens, a 35/2 Nikkor did things that were impossible with my other lenses. I ended up with a four lens kit. 35/2, 55/3.5, 105/4 and 200/4. The next major acquisition was a 1000/11 Celestron C-90. It extended my range, all right, but was dreadful. The 700/8 Questar that replaced it was much better.
Magic bullets? None. Tools that extended or improved what could be done? All of 'em.
Yes! But, sadly, soon I realized:
a) The effect did not work for me for all situations
b) Got tired of that particular effect
c) Found more 'magic' bullets with their particular effect
d) 30 years later, I am still looking for the next magic bullet!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
My magic bullet was a Mercury II half-frame camera with 1/1000 second shutter speed and f/2.7 lens bought second-hand in 1951. Just a year earlier I had been using a 1911 vintage folding Kodak with a TBI shutter and maybe a f/14 lens.
ive had a magic bullet for a while now
given to me by a magi, but unfortunately
i can't remember what it is ( was ? )
My magic bullit was a 9g 7.62mm full metal jacket rifle bullit. A real killer :-)
Sorry couldn't help it.
My first MB was when I only had the F90X. I really needed a F100.
Then came the SQA-i
Then the 85mm f/1.4 Then large format (13x18cm) followed by the zeiss 25 f/2.8 zf followed by the chamonix 45 F1 and now mamiya 645 pro.
You know what? They are really magic:-)
The beasts you kill with your magic bullets keep changing. So you need different magic bullets. Personally I think GAS is a mid Winter syndrome.
I did have a camera that I liked so much I actually called it my magic camera. It seemed that every time I used it I liked what I got.
It was a 2.8E2 Rolleiflex with a Xenotar lens. I decided one year to sell it and get the best Rollei money could buy.
I spent the money but never got another magic camera. I think I expected too much.