File: F93RyU-XsAAb0Mk.jpg (28 KB, 526x524)

28 KB JPG

Everyone talks about 3d pop, but what about carman pop?

File: olympus-om-135mm-f35-good.jpg (53 KB, 650x650)

53 KB JPG

I love this little nigga like you wouldn't believe.
Come to think of it I love all the Zuiko lenses. Especially when paired with my OM-4Ti. Makes me love taking pictures.

File: DSCF9034-Edit.jpg (146 KB, 1423x1500)

146 KB JPG

SOVL has entered the thread

File: color.jpg (806 KB, 3240x2154)

806 KB JPG

>>4383505
it's such a shame because lenses can have such a big impact
i used to go pretty autismo with the lens comparisons

one example showing different lenses contrast and color cast

File: 1618crops.jpg (695 KB, 2500x1875)

695 KB JPG

>>4383551
example showing major difference in bokeh

File: 50ish.jpg (1.17 MB, 3000x2000)

1.17 MB JPG

>>4383553
also, i get super triggered when people talk about lenses and only talk about focal length and aperture, as if all lenses are the same
the favorite lens thread where someone said generic 70-200 got me good

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.4 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:02:14 11:40:04
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000

>>4383553
>>4383551
Ah yes, all the things that are only charted in the mfg lab but should be charted for everyone so we dont have to buy and return shit lenses over the colors.

Lens autism has only gotten worse
>70s: leica glow, zeiss pop, sharpness tested at mfd, mid distance, and infinity, complete mtf charts
>2000s: simple mtf charts, field curvature charts, increasing 3d pop delusions
>2010s: simple mtf charts, lwph bar graphs at mid distance, 3d pop schizophrenia over element counts
>2020s: just buy snoy gaymaster or ttartisan <- working class. trust fund/deep in debt class -> muh $5000 leica gummicron has magic depth transmission and 3d rendering

>>4383555
true, would love for you to contribute and share some of your favorite lenses as well

>>4383556
My favorite lens is the apple 3.99mm f1.8. Lots of 3d pop.

Redpill me on microtonal harvesting

>>4383558
thank you for making a positive contribution to the thread!
hopefully you can get some sample pics with it you can share later

>>4383558
>>4383566
At least it's one of the better iPhone camera lenses

>>4383561
the more mm your lens has, the fewer microtonal depth values it can harvest for rendering.

No one looks at a shitty wide aperture photo and thinks
>Omg the bokeh is so BUSY

>>4383608
>f64 propaganda
go home gramps, no one cares about your 1925 photo group

File: 240208036.jpg (1.47 MB, 4500x2000)

1.47 MB JPG

>>4383608
what a great opportunity for you to participate and share a photo without a wide aperture
really though, same could be said for
>omg the noise, the colors, the pixels
i kinda care how bokeh looks though, no judgement if you don't i guess

here's some more for you, this time same lens but at f2, f2.8 and f5.6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 26.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4500
Image Height	2000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:10 12:37:11
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4500
Image Height	2000

>>4383615
Cheap lazy way to get rid of crap elements of photo instead of taking 2 minutes to plan a composition

>>4383615
stop fucking dogs

i think the pentax m lenses are neat :)

>>4383617
true! it's so handy for that
looking forward to seeing your examples of planned composition to show off a lens you like

>>4383555
>1980s: low contrast, high CA, fuzz instead of glow, expensive lenses render like paintings

>>4383640
film lenses from the 80s/90s are slept on so hard. It's kind of insane.

>>4383640
>expensive lenses render like paintings
give 3 examples

Compression is utterly disgusting, luckily the world is getting wise to this fact and has made 24mm the new 'normal' lens. If you're in to tele use a 35 by all means, but this new paradigm means that finding decent retro lenses harder, which are they?

>>4383650
You sound like a thoughtless dillweed with issues so go buy a $5000 leica 24mm f1.4

>>4383650
I think compression can be a neat effect but mainly I like the reach

File: 1719070464643389.jpg (262 KB, 1920x1080)

262 KB JPG

I think it might be legitimately over for Sony.
Viltrox has the equipment Sony uses for polishing their asphericals now.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

File: 1702043092836366.jpg (1.21 MB, 1920x1080)

1.21 MB JPG

Sharper center, sharper corner, brighter corner.
60% cheaper.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>4383723
Canon fears this

>>4383723
That's really nice for people who like using small telescopes as camera lenses and zooming in on eyelash hairs (the only thing in focus) at f1.8. I'm happy for them.

Can they please make a few small zeiss/leica-good f2-f2.8 primes that autofocus and have aperture rings now? You know, for photographers?

>>4383542

I was thinking of buying one of these to stand on the beach and take photos of waves breaking, not sure if 135mm is enough reach though, the really nice breaking waves are out where surfers go about 30-50 meters offshore.

What's worth thinking about if I'm looking to shoot vintage lenses on mirrorless full frame?

I've started with a cheap tamron zoom on my A7c but I'm looking for something faster and a bit softer for portraits. Oh I find lens peaking really fun, I didn't think cameras could do that

File: 5d2.jpg (912 KB, 1544x2700)

912 KB JPG

>>4383505
stupid setup but I got the lens for six dollars, which would be like 4 USD. weighs like 5 or 6kg with the battery grip on the 5d.

File: IMG_5593.jpg (3.53 MB, 4068x6060)

3.53 MB JPG

>>4383748
it feels really sharp and constrasty, almost like it has the dehaze setting built into it. reminds of the SSC canon lenses a bit in that regard

I hoarded a bunch of m42 50mm lenses, any ideas on what to shoot to get a feel for their character

hard mode:
it's winter and there is 0 sunlight

>>4383740
dude this 135 is like 10 bucks on ebay auctions
and the 200 is pretty cheap too (not as nice wide open tho)

File: s-l1200.jpg (131 KB, 898x938)

131 KB JPG

I love this little nigga like you wouldn't believe it.

Such a shame that they never made them in a different mount.

>>4383919
write names of lenses ffs anons

File: dsc0107.jpg (848 KB, 3008x2000)

848 KB JPG

>>4383928
Love the rendering of this lens, especially the OOF areas

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D70
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 8.1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	2206
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Serial Number	-1000216
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:25 12:46:41
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3008
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	500
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO
Image Sharpening	HIGH
Focus Mode	MANUAL
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	500
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Tone Compensation	AUTO
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	0.0 mm; f/0.0
Auto Focus	Center
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Color Mode	Portrait sRGB
Lighting Type	NATURAL
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	16112
Image Optimization	CUSTOM
Saturation 2	NORMAL

>>4383928
its on the lens my man

File: ok.jpg (28 KB, 499x481)

28 KB JPG

>>4383929
>>4383930

>>4383928
>He can't read russian characters
Pleb

Speaking of soviet lenses does anyone have any favourites

sup /p/
Please help me.
I'm confused. Today, I bought a Fujinon 35 2.8 (for 80 dollars) that I've been searching for so long, as I've heard about its amazing image quality.
I'm not a perfectionist when it comes to sharpness; I'm just looking for that special softness and plasticity in the image.
Since I already had a Chinese 35 1.6 for 20 dollars, I decided to compare them to keep only one 35.

However, I was surprised to find that the cheap basement Chinese lens was not only sharper but also didn't suffer from chromatic aberrations and didn't soften the image like a blurry poop (fujinon 35 2.8).
Pic related.
On the left is the Fujinon 35 2.8, and on the right is the cheap Chinese lens.
https://imgur.com/a/HgckCUh

>>4383953
What aperture settings? The images all say f/1 which obviously can't be correct for a 2.8 or a 1.6. it may be an issue where they have different sweet spots or dof

File: OM20RVP100 19.jpg (2.5 MB, 2048x3046)

2.5 MB JPG

>>4383542
I have one, it's a piece of shit.
>not fast
>not particularly sharp even at f/11
>red flare on edges which gets worse when you stop down
>huge minimum focus distance
>>4383740
You're honestly better off using a kenko 2x converter on a 50mm than carrying this piece of shit around.
No-name M42 135's out-perform this.
>>4383820
Cheap for a reason

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	3046
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4383974
>dude its shit
>post kino
???

>>4383967
Oh, I am sorry for bothering you. On this pictures both lenses are tested on 2.8. It shows f1 cause both are manual.
I also tested them at f/4: fujinon shows more chromatic aberration and softness. I've been searching for the Fujinon like it's the Holy Grail, so I don't know which one I should keep and which one I should sell

File: get-a-load-of-this-guy.png (122 KB, 498x383)

122 KB PNG

>>4383974
stop fucking dogs
I know it's you, faggot

>>4383994
>its that schizo who accuses random people of being the bestiality porn stars he knows about for some reason that totally isn’t “being into it”
>he’s still here
ugh. we get it man, you have unresolved issues from repressing your “interests” in daily life but this is not a healthy way to get it off your chest.

File: A7R00908F100Sigma150CamHo(...).jpg (1.32 MB, 2048x1366)

1.32 MB JPG

>>4383976
That shot looks nice-ish because it's on velvia in nice light, but it's soft all over the frame and the CA that sharpens as you stop down puts it straight in the bin for me. Add in the hood that obstructs you using filters in their dumb olympus size and I hate it even more.
For actual character I use a 135mm SOFT, for actual IQ I use a 100mm or up macro.
>pic related, and this lense isn't even good at longer distances, it's just that everything is better than that oly

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	100 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1366
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4383999
Now this is is kino. I love how film’s fucky handling of color and exposure melts the hills and sea together

File: A7R00683_30VRetro80S.jpg (1.13 MB, 2048x1367)

1.13 MB JPG

>>4383953
You're comparing a low/mid-tier 70's slr lense to a modern chinese cctv lense; aside from the chinkshit being an obviously wider focal length this is exactly what you should expect.
Get yourself a Fujica ST705W and shoot that Fujinon as god intended on B&W film and you'll like it a lot more.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4384007
Thank you. Before that, I used the M42 Fujinon 50mm f/1.4 for several months, and it was incredibly sharp. It didn't have such pronounced aberrations and produced a wonderful, magical image. Perhaps I was mistaken in trying to transfer this experience from a specific lens to the entire "Fujinon lens family".

Also, that cheap 35mm f/1.6 covers APS-C (!) sensor size, which has confused me too (20$ no brand lens better than vintage Japanese for 80$). Now I realize, thanks!

>>4383649
FD 85/1.2L
Nikon 135/2.0 AIS and 135 DC
Minolta 135 STF
Canon 200/1.8L

>>4383644
Yet it's the key to the 80s B-movie and 90s music video aesthetics

>>4383998
What’s going on here?

>>4384197
The infamous /p/ugplapper no doubt

>>4383722
>>4383723
samyang already did this last year, boring

>>4384197
Weird mentally ill man keeps accusing people of being specific dog fuckers he saw in porn. He’s even accused cANON with a porn name, and cANON doesn’t even have a dog.

File: IMG_2393.jpg (1.97 MB, 1290x1543)

1.97 MB JPG

Really love this helios 44-2 13 blades edition it’s rarer than the common lens and the bokeh is lovely.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1290
Image Height	1543

File: 1722369159885018.jpg (1.1 MB, 1920x1080)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4384230
>samyang already did this last year
Samyang isn't in the running.

You most likely read one of those bad reviewers who used their ancient A7Rm3 for testing, who concluded the ancient camera's bad AF algorithm made both lenses suck.
everybody else tested the 2 lenses on modern camera bodies, and the stepper motor in the Samyang lens definitely fell behind the new linear motor in the Viltrox.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>4384197
>guy fucks his dog/cat/chicken and posts nonsense
>tries to gaslight people when called out on said bestiality
many such cases on /p/

>>4384344
Looks more like this guy has an obsessive follower that keeps randomly projecting onto him. Like here >>4383994

>>4384197
Some time ago, the pet photo contest got cross linked on /an/.

On /an/, they have this schizo guy who is obsessed with the idea that everyone, specifically dog owners, are all fucking their dogs. He is also obsessed with fucking dogs himself and finds animals sexually attractive. He followed /an/ posters here because he actually believes literally everyone with a dog fucks it and he needs to deal justice or whatever.

He's also a micro four thirds shill, as we found out when huskyfag provoked him, and he started linking the 3 year old accusations he made against huskyfag on /an/ where he linked videos of men fucking dogs as supposed proof that a photo of huskyfag's dog getting a belly rub was something more sinister. He's also actively trying to dox doghairnegatives and made threats against him saying he could find out where he lived based on photos of his farm.

>>4384425
Complete lies, detailed but utterly false
Also nothing wrong with bringing an animal abuser to justice

>>4384426
what if the animal consents?

>>4384426
>complete lies
Nah, I post on /an/ and he’s pretty spot on about dogfucking schizo. He’s been at it for like 3 fucking years and hates leo and heather in particular because he thinks leos owner is a janny and heathers owner threatened to kill him.

>>4384466
animals can't consent
>>4384467
>namefag drama from /an/
glad I don't visit that board despite enjoying nature/animals, sounds like a mess

File: 20210507 Some of my favou(...).jpg (369 KB, 2048x1381)

369 KB JPG

never betting the allegations, desu

>>4384488
It's not usually that bad, or much worse depending on which thread you visit. Lol.

>>4384426
There's an archive. You can see that they are both actively against animal abuse. Probably why they are both stalked throughout this website...

>>4384489
This picture always makes me laugh. It's too perfect.

>>4384489
Doghair looks like an american domestic terrorist from the 70s and is a huge christfag. This isn’t him.

>>4384530
A young Micheal Mcdonald that has been homeless for 3 months is a better description.

>>4384530
>american domestic terrorist from the 70s
Care to provide examples

>>4384530
>>4384585
>>4384620
he looks like a fat lesbian, xe posted a photo of xerself on /fgt/

>>4384620
I was going to ask the same thing.

>>4384623
Pure and absolute projection.

but what is the superior lens mount

>>4384620
>He hasn't seen the doghair selfies
imagine a very gay looking homeless man who is deathly afraid of personal hygiene and likes rolling in manure. that's doghair. maybe it's been his hair all along and his dog was innocent.

/p/ in general is not very good looking, except burt and ambush look normal. most of the posters here actually look kind of scary and you'd 100% cross the street if you saw them coming.

most terrifying looking person goes to eggy (looks like he'd dress up as a clown and dismember you and keep you in a closet).

>>4384626
>He hasn't seen the doghair selfies
Nice redditpsacing and question dodging, also please provide examples of an "american domestic terrorist from the 70s" or at least what was "domestic terrorism" in 70's America.

>>4384625
Wouldn't it depend on what you're trying to accomplish? Personally a camera having the best lens mount would not sell me on the system. Short flange distances are nice because it lets you adapt basically any lens to camera...

>>4384627
There are no doghair selfies. I would never post a selfie because I have stalkers. There has been an instance or two where you can see a rough silhouette in my dog's eyes, and some shadows of my body shape, but that is it.

>>4384620
Nigga looks like dollar store charles manson

>>4384634
Charles Manson wasn't a domestic terrorist, nor was he active in the 70s

>>4384635
Well ok i grew up in europe sorry i got it wrong yankee doodle

>>4384636
Not a yank either but we always get bombarded with their cringe media yet i don't remember a domestic terrorist from the 70s from their part other than black panthers and gays.

File: file.jpg (94 KB, 800x800)

94 KB JPG

pannycake, pannycake, bake me a cake

>>4384626
Looks can be deceiving.

>>4383919
I've never seen a 2 stage aperture mechanism, it's beautiful and I love it.

>>4384866
pretty sure the blades are just L-shaped

>>4384658
I hate this lens, its shitty autofocus, its weird perspective distortion for a 40mm FOV (vertical FOV is too much), and its shitty slight green cast.

>>4385067
>its weird perspective distortion for a 40mm FOV (vertical FOV is too much)
That isn't just from not being used to M43's 4:3 aspect?

>>4385032
I see it now.
Makes sense.
But I am also sad now, would have been so cool.

File: Negative0-28-26(1).jpg (3.27 MB, 2100x1400)

3.27 MB JPG

>>4383919
Oh fuck yeah this is one of my fave lenses.
I should get a contax adapter for my leica..

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2100
Image Height	1400
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	254 dpi
Vertical Resolution	254 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2020:05:24 17:03:21
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2100
Image Height	1400

>>4385080
iirc, the Helios 103 doesn't have a helicoid, and even with an adapter, you need to focus using your feet. Therefore, you need to find a technician who can adapt the lens specifically for your working distance, and also find an adapter (usually adapted to L39).

>>4385099
There's a chinese made adapter with a helicoid and rangefinder coupling that's been out for a couple years now, I just haven't gotten around to getting one yet.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/286077165785

Before that there was the Amadeo adapter but its built to order afaik.

File: DSCF4666.jpg (1.84 MB, 3000x2000)

1.84 MB JPG

i have two of these. i picked single coated because i like the colorful flares, but in practice i hardly ever shoot wide open which is when the flares really shine

>>4384007
very sik

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:14 01:30:49
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	-3.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

>>4385118
Thorium oxide lens?

File: R1-03180-0011.jpg (1.16 MB, 1800x1200)

1.16 MB JPG

>>4385120
no

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:30 00:13:23
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4385129
>>4385080
wonderful photos, where can i see more?

File: R1-04715-0011.jpg (1010 KB, 1800x1200)

1010 KB JPG

>>4385130
sorry, i'm not a real car-tographer. that was just the only thing around where i was at

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:30 01:03:22
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4385297
it wasn't the cars that attracted me, but the grainy warmth in your photos, a kind of dreamy melancholy (and also, I dare say, the signs in Bulgarian)

>>4385378
I guess that's why we are all in this thread, so i wish see more your works (if it possible)

samyang is best

File: R1-05988-0028.jpg (677 KB, 1800x1200)

677 KB JPG

>>4385378
ok i have a few more grainy pics on this lens. as for bulgarian signs, that's between you and fe2fucker

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:05 23:56:39
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: R1-09040-0005.jpg (1.05 MB, 1800x1200)

1.05 MB JPG

>>4385383

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:12 23:16:13
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: R1-03180-0012.jpg (1.06 MB, 1800x1200)

1.06 MB JPG

>>4385385

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:30 00:18:46
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: makeup4_web - Copy.jpg (771 KB, 1012x1417)

771 KB JPG

>>4384240
I have a similar earlier 13 blade Helio 44 Silver Start 58mm f2 that is one of my fav lenses. A beautiful soft lens with a lot of character even in the studio without the characteristic swirly bokeh.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	8192
Image Height	5464
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:03 12:29:28
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.00 m
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1012
Image Height	1417
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Negative0-16-14(1).jpg (4.44 MB, 2100x1400)

4.44 MB JPG

>>4385130

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2100
Image Height	1400
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	254 dpi
Vertical Resolution	254 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2020:05:12 22:41:19
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2100
Image Height	1400

File: c021_24_2_feature_02_01.png (651 KB, 1920x626)

651 KB PNG

Does anyone else have a love-hate relationship with modern sigma lenses? They are all very sharp, but some of them feel a lot more flat than others. Pic related on the contrary is very, very good in my opinion.

>>4385395
what the fuck

this photo has different colors on phone and different on laptop screen. fuck this shit

>>4385451
You know the image doesn’t change don’t you? Color balance your shit FFS. How can you be a photographer and edit or view images without a balanced monitor or screen?

>>4385546
>How can you be a photographer and edit or view images without a balanced monitor or screen?
NTA but you can by taking pictures and editing until you like them :^)

>>4385546
I am a B&W tranny. But you're right

>>4385631
You can edit them all you like but then the final image on the file is not what you are seeing on your unbalanced monitor or screen. For example, your screen could be super bright with a yellow cast. Then on everyone else's screens your shit looks under exposed with a blueish cast. Helps to have your shit dialed in for printing also, so you get exactly what you see on the screen, especially if you soft proof.

>>4385813
You get used to your screen tho. And know how colors look on it.

>>4385815
Yeah that shit really floats when working with clients, especially fashion, when colors need to be spot on. Shit, even wedding fags better get the bridesmaids dresses the right color or you are gonna cop shit from the bride. Guessing colors might work for your Ken Rockwell style landscapes but anything you are getting paid for.....

>>4385818
Who cares about fucking wedding photography? I want to have fun taking photos, not fall into depression because I have to work for clients who keep bitching at me.

>>4385823
All commercial photography requires color management, not just wedding fags. But if you are happy being an amateur, that's cool. No one is probably going to see your shit in print anyway so it probably doesn't matter if the shit is the wrong exposure or color balance.

>>4384489
holy fucking based
If ever I make money I will make a fursuit.

>>4385395
>without the characteristic swirly bokeh.
Doubt, the swirl comes from the modified double Gauss design (Biotar)

i know nothing about photography or lenses, is it doable to buy broken lenses and fix / clean them and resell them

>>4385858
Sure it is. Much easier to buy working lenses covered in fungus for cheap and clean em though.

>>4385849
I meant without the swirly dappled background lighting that you see most Helios users gravitate towards when used at certain distances between subject camera and background.

>>4385877
Swirling is also present in the Otus 100mm f1.4, which is a Sonnar, not a Biotar

>>4383931
it says GELIOS-103 -> HELIOS 103
Russians switch G and H for some reason

would the 17-55mm be a good choice for portaits on a canon t7i?

>>4386060
Just get the 50mm 1.8 it ends up being like 80 something mm on apsc and it's kind of objective but I think it's a better length for portraits than anything shorter. It will be sharper than the zoom lens and give more wanky bokeh too, if that's your thing. Get the 17-55 if it's going to be your only lens but I wouldn't for portraits. The 50 is pretty cheap too.

>>4386072
alright, I guess I'll wait til black friday or cyber monday to see if I can get it for dirt cheap

any vintage lenses worth picking up for solar/lunar photography?

>>4386187
Not really. Moon and sun diameter on sky is roughly 0.5 degrees. One needs a rather long lens to fill frame and resolve details even with a crop body.

>>4386187
any 500-1000 mm reflex lens and two 2x teleconverters which should run you about 25 bucks plus gas

File: Screenshot_20241119-113323.png (379 KB, 1084x2412)

379 KB PNG

thoughts? I was debating between this and a sigma 105 (I know that costs more) for portrait photography. I like close up shots and want to take photos of my girlfriend mainly oh and pets :)

>>4386358
Unless your pets are isopods and ants you don't need a macro lens for pics of them lol. Get a prime in the 70-115mm. f/4's a little slow for portraits. Unless you like wasting money I'd get something way cheaper.

>>4386360
I like really close up photography but that's true. actually I like macro but I don't like killing bugs. ok I might reevaluate. what would you say the minimum f stop for portraits is? I'm not talking studio but while visiting touristy spots. I'll probs bring a tripod too

>>4386358
Dont listen to these wankers. This is a much more useful purchase than a high end fast prime or dedicated macro lens (most people dont actually want to do 1:1 macro).

Portait primes rarely focus closer than 3 feet btw

>>4386362
Most portraits youve seen from vogue, elle, bazaar etc were shot at f11-f16! Fast primes are sharper even stopped down but that’s for people that print yuge 30” wide makeup ads.

Fast apertures are for wedding photographers and astro/low light landscape dweebs. The bokeh is just an accident that has to be managed with shooting distance. they’re after higher shutter speeds and lower ISOs.

>>4386364
>Big name portraits being shot at f/11-16
>f/16
Why on earth would you actually need to dip into diffraction territory in a studio environment? Even shooting at 100mm you'd have enough DoF to get more than one model stacked deep in perfect focus at like f/11 tops.
Maybe a big group photo I could understand, but still.

>>4386370
I'm not that anon but I'm the original one. I'm not gonna be shooting portraits in a studio, I'm doing them out at landmarks and stuff

>>4386358
get an 85mm f/1.8 or faster, idiot

>>4386393
thank you for the suggestion, i researched it a bit more and it seems like 85 mm is better than 105. why does it even exist when 85 seems to do less compression?

>>4386400
NTA. 100mm imo gives more natural perspectives, but between that and 85mm you're kind of splitting hairs.

>>4386400
A 105mm at the same aperture will give you a blurrier background (not a shallower depth of field, the background will be magnified more and so appear to be blurrier) than an 85mm, a 135mm more so than the 105mm, and if you manage to get one of the 200mm f/1.8s then that would be king. The trade offs are you need the space to back up from your subject, the lens will be heavier and physically larger, usually more expensive, and you need a faster shutter speed to handhold a longer focal length.

>>4386418
>a faster shutter speed to handhold a longer focal length
why is this?

>>4386419
ever saw someone zoom in a lot with their camera and noticed how it gets super shaky at one point?
the longer the focal length the more any movements of the camera's body get amplified

>>4386423
oh I see, thanks for explaining

>>4386419
>>4386423
A longer focal length means you're more zoomed in, so the same amount of movement of the camera covers a greater distance (over the same period of time) and causes more blur.

>>4386288
I'd expect "any" 500+ mm reflex lens with an "any" 2x teleconverter be a recipe for disappointment. However if its only $25, its pretty affordable one.
But definitely a no if it costs more than new Samyang 800mm f/8.

>>4383505
>but where is the autism about lenses?
You have to actually shoot photos to become obsessed with lenses.

Should I get a LUMIX S 85mm F1.8 or sell my stuff and switch to Sony and go all in with the 85mm gm2 f1.4?

>>4386895
Switch to sony but get the viltrox lab 135mm f1.8 instead

>>4386912
why that lens? I'm using it for portraits so I thought being f1.4 would be better

>>4386913
A 135 f1.8 has a larger aperture than an 85mm f1.4. Its also just a better lens. The 85mm GM sucks. They need a version 2 badly.

>>4386920
>85mm GM sucks
I thought they just released a revision to it? gm2?

>>4386928
Oh yeah I missed that part of the sony winning streak

135 still better

>>4386931
I'm a bit worried about the working distance desu

What the fuck is with everyone's hard on for 85mm lenses? I don't get it; it's not much tighter than a 50mm FoV. Id reckon 100-130mm is more suitable for portraits.

>>4386966
working distance
generally makes all faces look good, whereas 50 and 105/135 makes some faces look weird
good compression basically

It's regrettable that Nikon's in-body screw drive focus thing never survived. I swear it's the most reliable AF mechanism ever I've literally never seen a screw drive AF-D lens fail. I mean yes it's loud and that's regrettable but I like a lens that sounds like a turbine spinning up.

>>4385858
>>4385866 is right. Start small and with cheaper lenses. Primes are generally much easier to work with, especially older ones. Be sure to have a lens wrench, you can improvise but you're that much more likely to scratch the finish and that hurts resale value.

>>4386969
my D2h AF screw died, was not great for my af-d lenses

>>4386972
Is the in-body motor easy to replace by any chance? Or is the part unobtainium now.

>>4386968
neither 100mm or 135mm makes faces look weird you mong
it's actually the proffered lens for background separation as >>4386418 hinted with the 200mm f/1.8 being the king (although at that range working with the model would be awkward)