What Do You Think Is The Definition Of A Grail Lens (and how many do you own?)

<p>To me, a grail lens is something your wife does not think you need, but you have it anyway. lol</p>

<p>My grails are 85mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2 DC, 200mm f/2, four different copies of 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, Sigmonster, 1000mm f/11</p>

<p>List your definition of a grail lens and the ones you have, or the ones you want.</p>

<p>My Grail is the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8.</p>

<p>I've never heard the term "grail lens" before, but I assume we're talking about something exceptional that many would wish to own. I have a 200 f/2 that I suspect <i>most</i> people wouldn't think I need; my 14-24 is probably hard to justify, too. I also have the 135 DC, but only because I've been meaning to get around to selling it for a year; its performance turned out to be a little too mythological. I'd love one of the latest 400 f/2.8s, but I certainly don't <i>need</i> one (I do have a 500 f/4 AI-P, though).<br />

<br />

Fortunately my other half is into diving and doesn't care about photography, although she occasionally raises an eyebrow when I come out with kit that she didn't know I had. She seems to accept that it keeps me relatively sane.<br />

<br />

The lenses that I tend to think of as truly special are things like the Nikkor 300 f/2 (Aperture in London had one), 6mm f/2.8 (Grey's in London <i>have</i> one) and the 1200-1700 zoom; Canon's 1200mm f/5.6 is also in that category. I might also include the 1100mm f/6.3 that was (is?) also in Aperture and the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 "Sigzilla".<br />

<br />

Of the <i>relatively accessible</i> lenses that are special... the 14-24, the Zeiss 21mm, the DC lenses, any fast supertelephoto by Nikon or Canon, Canon's f/1.2 EF lenses, the Sony STF lens, the Voigtlander APO lenses, the noct-Nikkor and the better Noctilux lenses. There are some very good lenses that this list misses - the 90mm Leicas, the 135mm f/2 EF L, the 100mm EF macro L, most of Nikon's recent f/1.4 range, Canon and Nikon's 70-200 lenses, the Sigma 150mm macros... but I have to draw the line somewhere. My 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 is surprisingly good, as are recent Samyang f/1.4s; "grail" not so much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> a grail lens is something your wife does not think you need,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a very narrow definition - only straight, married men can have one.</p>

<p>Speaking for myself, my wife has no idea what lenses I have and wouldn't know which ones I needed or not, so I guess I don't have one. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>only straight, married men can have one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... or lesbian women... in some states ;-)</p>

<p>I agonize over each lens I buy, and my partner realizes I struggle to afford what optics I do have, so I don't have any grail lenses either.</p>

<p>I would say to be a true "grail" camera/lens item, it is more than something you want, only. </p>

<p>I should think that a "quest" has to come in somehow. Something that is not merely expensive, but hard to find and acquire.</p>

<p>It probably should also be guarded by a bunch of knights as well. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w17MamPY7A )</p>

<p>Except for a couple of minutes once a year when we're renewing our insurance, my wife has no idea of what lenses I have.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's a very narrow definition - only straight, married men can have one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not quite true, several of our women friends have wives. Except for one couple, who married during a brief window of sanity in California, they live in civilized countries like Canada or Argentina.</p>

<p>Why would a <em>lens</em> be a 'grail' object? It's a material thing; I can buy one if I want. You cannot buy the Holy Grail (even in Monty Python). Holy Grails, IMO, should be something like getting the cover of <em>Vogue</em> or <em>National Geographic. </em>Or having your book published and rising to Number 1 on Amazon. How about doing a nude shoot of Scarlett Johansson (or Brad Pitt/Johnny Depp)? Maybe photographing the Dalai Lama's triumphant return to Tibet.</p>

<p>Les - some bits of technology are works of (the designer's) art, and can be hard to acquire, often because they're not appreciated or cost-effective at the time. I jumped through some hoops to get my 135 DC, although they're more common now. The exotic lenses I listed were only ever made in very small quantities and have exceptional abilities - you couldn't just throw money at someone and expect them to come up with the Nikkor 6mm fish eye lenses unless there was a real artist designing them.<br />

<br />

I feel the same about my T221 monitor (which was hard to source), or about some supercars (especially ones like the Veyron, which actively cost its manufacturer money to produce). Just because they're mass produced doesn't mean that they weren't made by the sweat and tears of some people with remarkable skill, and a labour of love.<br />

<br />

But yes, there are some things that money can't buy. Perhaps "grail lens" is an odd term (I did say I'd not seen it before), but you can certainly go on a quest to be able to get some lenses. I'm lucky that I could afford to get a 200 f/2 - not that I've paid it off yet (it was buy it then or get the mk2 at twice the price) - but if I ever want a 400 f/2.8 then I'll be giving up other things to get it. For many people, a $1000 lens will be something they spend years saving up for.</p>

<p>my definition: A lens which is exceptional in performance of its intended function and is built in quantities so limited as to make it practically unavailable or unaffordable to a normal person, exceep in those very rare cases where one buys a storage locker and finds a "grail" or goes to an estate sale and snags one as a bargin.</p>

<p>Number I own: Zero.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... or lesbian women... in some states ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought about that, especially living here in SF. However, it was really just the point that it's a narrow definition regardless of how one looks at it. And I agree completely with Les anyway. I'm much more motivated to take that last photo that I ever need to take than to own any particular piece of hardware.</p>

<p><em>Four</em> copies of the 300mm f/2.8 lens? I enjoy gear, but I just can't wrap my head around that one, grail or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>four different copies of 300mm f/2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Copies? You should get the real thing!</p>

<p>I should sell a couple. lol</p>

<p>One of a kind lenses are not grails, they are holy grails.</p>

<blockquote><blockquote>four different copies of 300mm f/2.8</blockquote>

Copies? You should get the real thing!</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm now imagining a Nikon mug the size of a (half) yard glass. It could catch on...<br />

<br />

Gary: I'm sure there's a story behind you owning four of these lenses, unless they're really expensive table legs. Care to share?<br />

<br />

I think I should revise my original answer: the 200 f/2 and 14-24 that I own are extremely good bits of kit, and far better and more expensive than I can really justify owning, so they meet Gary's original definition of a "grail lens" for me (and possibly so does the 135 DC). Their only justification is that retail therapy contributed to my tenuous sanity, and the pleasure I get from the image quality that they can produce (if I could learn to point them at anything worthy) is appreciated; as an amateur, they certainly don't earn me any money, just save me a lot of time in editing and improve some of my images. But they're certainly relatively common bits of kit that a lot of people own, so perhaps grailhood is overstating it.<br />

<br />

To those denying that a "grail lens" can exist, I can only state that I'm an odd mix of someone who can appreciate an impressive technical achievement in producing a very good lens, and someone who believes that these things are intended to be used to take the best photos I can. I don't believe in owning an exotic lens for the sake of it - for all my Nikon Acquisition Syndrome, I don't actually <i>collect</i> lenses. I have no interest in a "grail lens" in the sense of a "commonplace lens associated with something famous/extraordinary"; I've no idea what happened to the equipment used by Ansel Adams or HCB, or the camera used for the shot of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot (for example) and don't particularly care. I'd quite like to see the f/0.7 lens that Kubrick used, but only because it's an unusual optic, not because it made a film.</p>

<p>For me it would have to be a CV Nokton.</p>

French Soldier: I told 'em we already got one.

<p>French soldier to King Arthur: Go, or we shall taunt you again, English pig-dog.</p>

<p>However, it suddenly struck me. I DO have the grail lens -</p>

<p>here it is, cost me about $5 from China, it's an EF 24-105mm IS L coffee mug, but I suppose in a pinch you could catch blood in it.</p><div></div>

<p>One that does what it supposed to do in an exemplary fashion like ...<br>

Micro Nikkor AF 200<br>

Own 1</p>

<p> I just use basic equipment. I am not a big shopper and I do not agonize over buying new equipment ever. Since my hobby is B/W film I just put a roll of film in the camera and go shoot. Anyway no Grail lenses and if I need to replace something then it has a low cost. A good F100 cost about $200.00 these days and sometimes you can get one for free. Of course buying Kodak film puts money in an American pocket if anyone cares about that. I use Kodak film, Domke camera bags, Tiffen filters. All US products. Sorry but I just watched the Presidents speech and got fired up. He is a very good speaker. </p>

<p>I'd say my Nikon 17-35mm lens could have grail status. I remember when I got it 10 years ago - opening the box, then opening the useless but elegant hard leather case...</p>

<p>Sometimes I'll bring just a 20mm lens to travel light, but I always end up missing those extra 3mm.</p>

<p>It took saving and waiting, but I got a Tokina 11-16 last year when it was briefly for available at B&H. </p>

<p>I have a friend who claims to own a Grail Lens, but she shows it to no-one...sadly.</p>

<p>I'm just not 'getting' this. Lenses like the Nikon 85 f1.4 or 24-70 f2.8 are readily available. I could go out and buy one of each. I am NOT claiming to be rich; in fact, my business is lousy in this economy, but I could order them right now online. I'd be <strong>foolish</strong>, but it could be done. I know any number of collectors, but their Holy Grails tend to be incredibly rare, like a Type 57 Bugatti, or a letter signed by Button Gwinnett.</p>

<p>I guess I just can't handle equipment-mania.</p>