Have you all actually tried these lenses? They're pretty cool.
>>4310110Manual Zuikos? Yeah I have a 50mm 1.4 and its great, but it has a very modern, clinical look to the pictures, not really what youd expect from vintage glass.
>>4310152Does it remind you of Zeiss glass?
>>4310110far worse, i have them. they have a weird color cast.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareCapture One WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Width2000Image Height1331
>>4310167Canonet ql17 with porta 400, compare, to...[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2400Image Height1609Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4310168...Lolympus. Different day, similar exposure tho.Using them on digital there's a dull yellow/green tint depending on the lens[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width2400Image Height1609Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4310159Not even close.
>>4310168Nice colors>>4310169Wtf.
>>4310169Thoriated glass? I have a super-shitumar 50/1.4 which goes yellow over time
>>4310167Their color cast looks good on a t2i.
>>4310195No it does not.
>>4310196Well at least I have plenty of money to buy food and rent instead of using most of it on camera gear.
>>4310199Do you really think nobody here makes actual money? The shitty film camera above seems to come with a personal pool hall.
>>4310216Well after since seeing the infamous video of the photographer who uses his disability checks on buying cheap film, kinda.
>>4310218That was you.
>>4310219Thank you
>>4310195It doesn't at all
>>4310224Alrighty then, what vintage lens do you think looks good on the T2i?
>>4310193There are two main versions of the Super-Takumar, the original version had 8 elements and contained no thorium, but my usage had a slight yellow tint anyway. Maybe the later versions just have it worse.
>>4310230I've heard a lot about those lenses. M42 mount right?
I have the 55 1.2. Managed to snag one with a camera body for $150. It is a fun lens, but clearly vintage. Bokeh is strange and it has lots of chromatic aberrations.
>>4310168>>4310169are you the dogfucker of /p/?
>>4310110Use them in my Olympus om1 it’s part of getting that look from that era.Using my modern Nikon primes on the f100 produces something that looks halfway between film and digital.I much prefer film with these older style lenses.
>>4310328No, that's your mother.
>>4310159Not particularly, but Zeiss has a certain niche, and a lens doesn't have to be Zeiss-like to be good
>>4310232Yes, but they'll adapt rather easily to modern mirrorless (DSLRs are S.O.L. though, since the back element gets in the mirror's way). The Takumar 50s are also known for their heavy flaring when wide open. Pic related is f/1.4.
>>4310434This is probably a better example.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
