i saw in other threads anons saying that more people should make threads for their photo sets rather than fill /rpt/ with them so here we golast week I got a haul of vintage canon FD lenses from a thrift store for a couple dollars. every image I post in here is taken with one of those lenses adapted to my Canon R7 APS-C Mirrorless. Most of them are taken with a Canon FD 50mm f1.8 that was in poor condition before I took it apart and cleaned it. every photo was then edited in lightroom (some lightly, some heavily) and compressed. This was my first time really using manual focus so no guarantee of sharp focus.I plan to shoot with these lenses more so I will update this thread as long as it stays alive. I encourage others to post their photos taken with vintage lenses on modern bodies as well!
I am also posting only my favorites and if people like it I might find some more from the shoots to post
for anyone wondering, these are all taken in various towns, villages, and cities in western New York State
>>4536009
>corners of buildings
>>4536011
>>4536012
>>4536015
>>4536017
>>4536007
last one for tonighti hope (you) enjoy!
Mirrorless makes it so much easier to adapt old glass. In the case of Canon's FD lenses, they weren't even adaptable to EF bodies, so now they can be given new life.I'm a fan of the C/Y Zeiss series. Picrel is from the Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 on a Canon R.
>>4536017cool door
>>4536019this is kino to mei love infrastructure shots
>>4536007This photo is not level.>>4536008This photo could be technically level (hard to tell) but would look better rotated slightly to the left.>>4536026Nice.
Thanks for the photo thread anon, really cool. My critique would be, I think you are practicing isolation of some motifs in these shots, but you need to include a subject. In shots like these >>4536010 , >>4536016 it feels like you are setting up a scene but there's nothing in it. If you don't already know of him I suggest looking up the work of Eggleston. >>4536026kino
>>4536027>>4536028thank you>>4536083I considered using the lightroom auto level thing on the OP pic but ended up just cropping and not rotating at all. I probably should have.>>4536087Thank you for the critique anon, you are right that is something i should think about more.
The Nikon Ai Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 on my Canon R.
>>4536314The Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (8-element version).
>>4536315The C/Y Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4.
I'm glad the vintage glass hype has died off and prices returning to sane levels.
>>4536316Damn. First great shot I've seen here in ages.Sadly just a pet photo, but the rendition is amazing.
>>4536325On what planet?
>>4536026>now they can be given new life.they have a life, on the millions of FD mount cameras made
>>4536391B*sed
>>4536391Now we can have both. Options like this are always good.Picrel is the C/Y Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4.
>>4536463This was definitely the OP for an /rpt/ a while ago.
couple from today
>>4536465
>>4536466similar to >>4536017i like taking pictures of doors
>>4536467i should note that this set used a 28mm f2.8 which is softer and slower than the 50mm but is definitely a more usable length on the crop sensor since it comes out to an effective ~50mm
i was kinda mad that the line in the sidewalk and wall and the middle of the two sets of hose ports or whatever didn't line up at all.
>>4536469still, a pic of nothing
>>4536474its a picture of a traffic cone. >>4536315 is a picture of a tree. I'm not saying mine is better than that anon's photo or that mine is a work of art but could you enlighten me to the difference? Is a tree a more 'correct' subject than a traffic cone? If you think it's a bad picture I could understand that, but I struggle to see how the cone isn't clearly the subject, but maybe I don't have the eye for this kind of photography.
>>4536476You likely won't get an answer from that shitposter. (picrel is the same lens as the logs).
>>4536477cute deer and nice picture. There is a canon fd 50mm f1.4 ssc at my local camera store that is really tempting me since it's only $35, I'm sure the Zeiss is nicer though.
>>4536478They all have their unique characteristics. $35 is definitely a good price to try it out.
>>4536476yip, a traffic cone is far less beautiful than a mossed tree (still not special at all) those kind of pics are the pics that one takes for oneself but wont evoke emotions in others
>>4536480>still not special at allI personally don't think a subject has to be special to make a photograph good or allow it to evoke emotion. A 'boring' subject with the right lighting or composition can still be interesting. I mean, >>4536316 is 'just' a cat, but I still think it is a very nice photograph.
>>4536474This is straight up not a valid criticism
>>4536330I take it that you don't really follow the market because there are countless examples and some of them very dramatic and it gets even worse when you account for inflation.>Canon 55mm F1.2 Aspherical easy sale for 4-5k a couple of years ago, now available for less than 1k>Canon NFD 85mm F1.2 L halved in price in the same time-frame>Olympus 21mm F2 used to go for 5k, now available as buy it now in mint condition with the original box and hood for less than half (seller is sure to accept a lower price).There are countless other examples such as low production exotic lenses from manufacturers such as Zeiss and Konica where they in some instances produced less than 1000 lenses in total and they still don't move on the market.
>>4536480No one cares what you think. (C/Y Zeiss 135mm).
>>4536007I want to get back into it. The big thing is I have far too much anxiety regarding buying online now.
>>4536477>>4536463>>4536314Nigga, I love your photos. Make a thread and post some.
>>4536476The other anon can't explain the difference likely because he doesn't know it himself so I'll try. The reason why a picture of a tree appears more valuable than a picture of a traffic cone is because the tree has a deeper narrative value. I'm not saying it's fair or it makes sense, but it's just a fact there is far more meaningful art revolving around trees than around traffic cones, so when you look at a tree picture, it relates to all these narratives you already know, while when you look at a traffic cone picture, it relates to being late at work because of public construction. Therefore you are expected to build a narrative around the traffic cone to cover for the lack of common narrative, while any simple minded person can look at a picture of a tree and tell the story by themselves.
another thread that proves that vintage lenses offer effectively 95% of modern lenses image quality for 5% of the cost
>>4536544Vintage lenses are nowhere near as sharp or well corrected as modern mirrorless glass but they do have beautiful rendering.
>>4536548is there even one single photograph that would not have been possible or would not have been as acclaimed unless it shot with a modern lens? i don't think sobig SaaS wants you to spend money on image editing software to counter the razor sharp and clinically ultra-neutral rendering of modern glass and sensors
>>4536554I mean yeah sharpness won't make bad photos good.
>>4536544Sure, if you view on a phone screen, but the quirks are hard to ignore. I can see the weird purple green tinged bokeh on my PC and people who only have phones aren't an important audience.
>>4536548>>4536577pseudo-modern lenses and "low end" mirrorless native glass is the way to goeveryone who hates modern lenses actually just hates RF L/Z S line/FE G master type lenses that camera reviewers use "to get the best out of the sensor". All the actual photographers use cheaper stuff that renders more like leica M designs.
>>4536548This is bullshit. Vintage low end lenses were often bad especially zooms. Good vintage lenses can be even sharper than FOTM glass notably Canon SSC. The thing is it's cheaper than ever to make sharp glass today. >>4536544True with caveats. Coatings and flare control are usually more limited on vintage (can be an advantage if desired). Some vintage lenses are excellent (CZJ Planar, Micro Nikkor for example), others mediocre (by definition the majority), others terrible (Domiplan save for some rare samples that turned out well). Lots of sample variation with low end glass too, mass production wasn't as fine tuned as today.
>>4536577>people who only have phones aren't an important audienceThey are almost the entire audience for photography you useless pseud.
>>4537654Almost the whole of "humanity" isn't really important at alldo you really care if rajesh from puttar dudesh likes your instagram post on his jeetphone and cant notice anything betteri personally draw the line at hot chicks with ipads. anything below that basically isn't a person.
>modern camera + vintage lenseveryone and her dog has done this.show me a modern focus-by-wire lens on an old body to impress me.
>>4537740This, let's see ultra modern fast Sigma chunkers on Nikon F2's with pharmacy film rolls
>>4536325It's more that people are getting fatigued of everyone choosing the same vintage lenses to buy. The Contax 85/1.4 is nice, but their 85/1.2 Planar is even better, it has better contrast than an Otus. They also made a 100mm and 135mm Planar that get slept on but offer uncanny valley levels of sharpness.
>>4537740Not possible. Nothing with an Autofocus capable mount has a longer flange distance than film-era mounts. Maybe get a dumb macro tube and modify it to take EF lenses, losing infinity focus (and probably half of the focus range for that matter).
>>4537740>impressed only by contrarianismBACK to plebbit
>>4537740That's pretty retarded, anon.
>>4537768I'm also impressed by this photo >>4536477 because how did the deer get so close?
>>4537770no it's not retarded. I'm just genuinely curious and want to see at least one person doing it even if it turns out to be a bad idea
>>4537754>>4537768>>4537770It's silly but an interesting idea, using the last EF/F mount meant for digital like Sigma, Tamron and such on old 80s/90s bodies with relatively new stock. You are just too ignorant/retarded to get it
>>4537772>how did the deer get so close?Rabies.
>>4537772judging by the angle, deer stand.
>>4537775but it is your idea that is retarded.there is a reason people have bothered to adapt old glass to new bodies, not new glass to old bodies.because the latter idea is retarded.
>>4537772I live in a small rural town close to a lake. I share my backyard with whitetail deer who nest right at the edge of the property, and they will walk close to my deck since I feed them. She, in particular, has been here since before I moved in and I've now come to see many new generations who I can identify just by skull shape. (Picrel taken with the C/Y Zeiss Planar 85mm)
>>4536578TRVTH NVKELegit though, the Nikon Z 35mm f1.4 renders much more pleasantly than the Nikon Z 35mm f1.2 at like a quarter of the price.
>>4537818These are very good anon. Thank you for sharing
>>4537740i put a modern samyang 14mm on my pentax mx and shot some portra 800 once. don't seem to have any scans saved but if this post gets 100 (You)s i can dig my scanner out
>>4537754>>4537740But that's the best combo, and should be common for film photography.My favourite combo is AF-S 14-24mm f2.8 on Nikon F80. It fakes the medium format look so well, with almost no perspective distortion at all.
>>4537775New lenses are designed for short flange distance while old cameras have long flange distance because of the mirror. This can't be done without adding optical elements between the lens and the sensor/film plane. If you gave it any thought you'd new it's never gonna happen.
>>4537836Everything F-mount just works(tm)
>Buy very fist EF camera (EOS 650 from 1987)>Slap very latest EF Lens on it (600mm F4 III from 2018)>/p/hag thirdies claims it can't be done
>>4537841>waiting half a day to move the goalpost
>>4537842Not the original poster, but nice way to deflect that you were indeed wrong.
>>4537841>Buy old film camera>Slap 8 year old lens made for a dead mount on it>Post inane bullshit on /p/ while acting smug
>>4537818so there your pet deer?
>>4537865Nah, we're just neighbors (C/Y Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4)
>>4536021i do enjoy, as a CNYer it feels just like home
>>4537846Cope.No one cares about "adapting" an EF lens to an old body MADE to work with EF lenses.The original goalpost before it was moved, was using a "modern focus-by-wire lens on an old body ". Something which is way different and also, to remind you, retarded.
