[HarisF1]

There's an image of the starbursts produced by the K135/2.5 that made me drool over the lens. I've now owned two copies and also have the Version 2 SMC Tak that shares the same optics.

[Yoda boy]

.
Shortly after the Pentax K3II camera came out, I saw this photo of a pixel shift photo taken by the K3II. I was so blown away by the clarity and detail this image exhibited, that I ditched most of my Nikon, Canon and Fuji gear and came over to Pentax.

Just today, I purchased a 200mm lens because I saw an incredible image on this forum that was taken with this lens.

Am I the only one out there who's been so moved (or impressed) by a single photo, that you rushed out and purchased the lens (or camera) that took the photo?

I haven't been swayed by one photo but have seen various photos taken by a certain lens that, over time, made me put it on my wish list, and then eventually my Must Purchase list. Examples would be the Pentax D FA 100 WR macro and the DA* 60-250 AW lenses. Also, I upsized to the D FA 150-450 lens for my K3 with the idea that it would be eventually useful on a K1. I liked the macro lens and can see where it is useful, but I loved the 60-250 once I got it and then was shocked by the clarity and brightness of the 150-450. Reviewing the photo contests makes ones mouth water. Wish I could create those photos. Working on it.

[CarlG]

I bought my Helios-40-2 1.5/85 partly because of the exaggerated swirling effect on out-of-focus highlights that I'd seen in a number of photos. I suppose I'd have bought it anyway at some point, merely to add to my collection... But it's one of the few Soviet lenses I actually lusted after

And +1

[rjosephs58wt]

One picture has made me research a few lenses. But, I bought all three after researching. The three were FA 31mm, Helios 44-2 and Auto Takumar 35mm f/2.3.
I used the 31 until I got my 20-40 and the 31 has not been used since. I may take a few photos a year with the other two.

[Heebie]

I want one of these after seeing a few photos taken with it:

Introducing the World's Fastest 12mm Lens, the Ultra Wide Laowa 12mm f/2.8

It looks SO sweet!

[pathdoc]

I won't buy a lens (or camera) based primarily on pictures taken with it or of it, but if I am considering a lens to fill a particular niche, I would consider it remiss of me not to check out the images it could produce.

I have on the other hand selected two lenses for single-in based on one spectacular image (spectacular to me, at any rate; not necessarily the rest of Creation) that I produced with it. One of those was the Super Takumar 55mm f/2.0 and the other is the SMC-M 135/3.5 (the latter of which has had the bad luck to be selected during an unusually, indeed obscenely, hectic and wet May).

[TaoMaas]

Yeah...kinda. I didn't set out to copy a specific pic, but John Shaw's early books made me ditch my 28mm lens and buy a 24 mm. His books also made me invest in a Gitzo 320 tripod and promptly cut off the center column with a hack-saw. It was a change I've never regretted. That Gitzo is still my main tripod after 29 years and it's still going strong. Digital photography has changed my preference for my 24mm lens, but I think that may come back if I ever go FF.

[stevebrot]

Thinking...thinking...thinking...

I have undertaken searches based on a single photo or multiple examples, but have only done two purchases:

• LZOS MC Jupiter-9 85/2 (Thank jsherman999 for providing the temptation)
• KMZ Helios 44M 58/2 (multiple photos, though it was not the swirls that spurred the purchase)

Steve

[pathdoc]

His books also made me invest in a Gitzo 320 tripod and promptly cut off the center column with a hack-saw.

Oh dear God, the poor tripod.

I am assuming this was done to enable you to get closer to the ground? (Depending on how the legs fold, this is not always possible - a cheap, older tripod I bought at a garage sale has three folding support struts coming out from the centre column on a down-sliding mount - you CAN'T cut that one without destroying the integrity of the tripod.)

[TaoMaas]

Oh dear God, the poor tripod.

I am assuming this was done to enable you to get closer to the ground?

Yes, that's exactly why I did it and it was suggested in the book. It made no sense to have a tripod with legs that could spread flat, but have a center column that kept you 8" off the ground. It scared me to death at the time to do it because I paid more for the tripod than I'd paid for any other piece of my photography gear. I should also add that this tripod will go to above eye-level with no center column extension so it's not like I really needed the center column. This investment in a good tripod has served me well over the years. I bought it around 1988 and it's still my main tripod. I've used it for all my small camera stuff, as well as with my 6X7. I even have an extra center column with a slider and video head attached so I can use it on video shoots. At the time I bought it, I had thoughts of going to a 4X5 camera so I wanted something that could handle any load and do it anywhere from ground level to eye level.

[Canada_Rockies]

Investing in a good tripod is amazingly productive. I bought my Manfrotto 055B in 1983. This year I had to make the first repair: the dumb person who owns it put it in the truck tool box with less than optimal care. One of the levers on a leg lock broke. Cost me nearly C$30 for the part. It should arrive shortly. The tripod will hold the K-3 + M 400 + AFA 17.x steady in all but the breeziest conditions with the legs at full extension.

[ffking]

His books also made me invest in a Gitzo 320 tripod and promptly cut off the center column with a hack-saw.

I've got a 320 which I still use regularly (heavy tripod, great for stability) - but by the time I got mine (early 90's IIRC) they made a short centre column - I've got one, and it's only about am inch longer than the tube that locks it

I originally bought it to partner my 67 - talking of which, that's a camera (system) that I bought after seeing a photo - took me maybe 10 years, but I always knew I wanted it, and had some great times with it (still sitting in the corner of my study - I haven't used it in years, but I can't bear to get rid of it.

[normhead]

I have never bought a lens because of an image I saw.. The closest would be the DA*60-250. But images taken with the 77, 31, 50-135 have impressed me, though I never bought one of those lenses. For me, I buy everything for their portrayal of reality. Lenses the add something that's not there in life are of little interest. I guess I suffer from having commercial studio as my favourite class in Photo Arts. Just the facts please. I understand some folks love those lenses that feature "pleasing" aberrations, photoshop filters etc. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just not for me.

[Canada_Rockies]

Gee, who might that be? (Rhetorical question. )

Also, one of the moderators will no doubt be along soon to flog you senseless for your bad language

The shame, the shame. I'm so embarrassed

[Kerrowdown]

Also, one of the moderators will no doubt be along soon to flog you senseless for your bad language

I can't... I'm already standing in the queue to be flogged.