[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 97 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: can_fd_12_50_2c.jpg (51 KB, 780x575)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
Best adaptable vintage lenses?
>>
File: unnamed (2).jpg (59 KB, 512x512)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>3820934
also are helios good or are they just a meme?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwarePicasa
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: jte64qhhaeu11.jpg (104 KB, 1080x720)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>3820935
its so swirly bros
>>
File: 1216x754x1.jpg (138 KB, 1216x754)
138 KB
138 KB JPG
>>3820940
kinda selling myself on it
>>
>>3820940
*When used on apertures wider than f/4, with a sufficiently detailed background, and higher distance between subject and background than subject and camera.
>>
>>3820948
thanks boss
>>
fd 74-200 f4.5

is this any good?
>>
I've had good results with Super Takumars and Super-Multi-Coated Takumars.
>>
>>3820956
which ones? I'm looking at the 28 f3.5 and the 135 f3.5
>>
M39 Jupiters
>>
>>3820935
They’re fun to fuck around with for the price. Definitely has a unique look that you won’t get from a modern lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T30
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)11 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2020:07:25 19:13:01
Exposure Time1/4000 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating160
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness6.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length7.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2304
Image Height1536
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3820935
they're fun if you like the look. Just avoid the modern ones
>>
>>3820940
What kind of backgrounds emphasizs the swirls? Is it trees and leaves?
>>
>>3820971
I feel like they really shine with uniform backgrounds but anything can be swirly when >>3820948
>>
>>3820961
which ones and can you share photos?
>>
>>3820934
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm
>>
>>3820981
wow that is one fat chode

do you have any pics?
>>
>>3820935
Trash in the corners but surprisingly sharp in the middle, even wide open, very swirly. For the price definitely worth it.
>>
>>3820934
canon fd 50 1.4 is god tier. kubrick loved it so much he convered it into a cinema lens for a lot of his movies
>>
>>3820958
I've only personally used 55mm ones (currently have an SMC 55mm 1:2), but the line has a pretty solid reputation.

Also, thoriated glass is cool.
>>
What's the sharpest minolta MD/MC lens available?
>>
>>3821613
Enjoy your radiation poisoning and your exposed negatives, scrub.
Thoriated glass is cool while what is has is thorium. When it decays it turns into a bunch of nasty shit that emits gamma rays and has an icky shade of yellow.
>>
>>3821623
This is false.
>>
File: thor.png (92 KB, 692x592)
92 KB
92 KB PNG
>>3821630
>>
>>3820953
Not really
>>
The only zoom I ever owned was a Nikon 70-210 4-5.6 and was impressive everywhere. They’re like $75 on eBay.
>>
>>3821632
I stand corrected.

Perhaps I should keep the radioactive lens off camera when not in use, and store it as far away from the bed as possible.
>>
>>3821651
>Nikon 70-210 4-5.6
i will look into this thank you friend
>>
>>3821712
That's definitely a good idea, don't sleep near thoriated glass. It's not super strong radiation, but it's not a good idea to get it either.
Also if you ever need to open it for whatever reason, do your research for best practices. You don't want to breathe that dust or leave residues around the house.
>>
>>3821717
Sorry forgot to say it’s a AF lens but obviously you can uuuhhh manually focus it. But again like worth a shot for $75. Hope it works out for you I loved the photos I got from mine. Note though that I was shooting it natively on 35mm and not hypercucked digital so it may look worse depending on your sensor. I’ll try to find some examples that computer is at my other house.
>>
>>3821720
>>3821712
You're acting like a phone or microwave oven are somehow weaker
>>
>>3821773
You're acting as if ionizing/high energy radiation is the same as radiation with less energy than visible light.
>>
>>3821788
You're being so paranoid about the levels of radiation in old lens coatings that you're 1 step away from suggesting they be seized and destroyed
>>
>>3821790
>coatings
Anon, it's not the coatings. It's the glass itself. There's thoriated glass, leaded glass, fluorite glass. All with the same goal in mind: to increase refraction per unit of thickness.
>>
>>3821794
And? My point still stands, you're close to suggesting the seizure and destruction of irradiated vintage lenses
>>
>>3821773
Personally, It's just a note to take precautions. Even if it's weak, it's good to be aware that it can be producing gamma, and that you should limit exposure.
>>
>>3821797
You should also feel reassured knowing the levels will never be high enough to burn your skin after usage
>>
>>3821796
It's more mass, therefore more radiation. The lenses themselves can be nearly innocuous correctly handled. What you're doing is like saying someone is a gun grabber because he tells you to be careful with reloads and to watch the pressure.
>>3821797
Exactly. Also not every lens is made equal, some have more thorium than others. But it's important to consider that as it decays it starts producing daughter isotopes which in some cases have more aggressive decay mechanisms. Aero Ektars are probably the most dangerous, both because of the generous concentrations of thorium and the high mass. They're exotic enough that I don't think anyone here has access to one though, even if there's an anon who has one of those modern Canons (200mm f/1.8L). I don't know how it compares in terms of exoticism or price with the radioactive ones.
>>
>>3821800
>which in some cases have more aggressive decay mechanisms.
The only issue along the chain is Radon. And even then the gamma emission is noted as "significant" only in comparison to the other decays which emit pretty much no gamma radiation.
In any case, the half life of the intermediary atoms is longish by human standards, so think about that:
Once 4 Radium-228 isotopes become available, it'll take ~5 years to convert 2 to Thorium-228.
Once you have 2 Thorium-228 isotopes, it'll take ~2 years to convert 1 to Radon-220.
Once you have Radon-220 (and the ones below it), you have your tiny gamma radiation.

Now the elephant in the room: How often do you get those 4 Radium-228 isotopes?
Well if you had 8 Thorium-232 isotopes, it'll take 14billion years to get 4 Radium-228 isotopes.

So the already insanely long half life of Thorium-232 is very slowed down considerably (by human life standards) when by the decay of the products along the chain until you reach the "dangerous" Radon-220.
In other words, the rate of production of Radon-220 from the initial pure Thorium is very small, and hence the rate of energy emitted through gamma radiation very, very small.
Of course it's all probabilistic and proportional to how much Thorium you start with, double the amount means double the Radon in the same timespan.

Now combine all that with the fact that Thorium was used at up to 30% concentration in *some* elements of the lens, and you get a sense of the scale.

People have run the numbers, and long story short, for a 70kg photographer using a Jena Tessar lens, for a "typical" 240 hours/year of holding the camera to your face.
Long story short, per year that lens will eat up 0.17% of your total radiation "allowance" to stay within safe limits.

>source: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:652338/FULLTEXT01.pdf
>>
>>3821800
>>3821822
i dont feel like reading all this nerd shit but am I supposed to believe a smc takumar is gonna harm me in anyway?
>>
>>3821824
No nigga just don't grind and snort it.
>>
>>3821794
Lens coating is a doped glass surface. People think lens coating is a spray on.
>>
>>3821825
well now I'm scared.
>>
My personal IQ/Price top is Jupiter-37A 135/3.5
For 40-50$ this lens is pretty SHARP and has nice bokeh rendering.
My gallery with it:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/linebrell/albums/72157687880006093
>>
>>3821843
Anon, I know how coatings are made.
Thorium is not used for coating. A thoriated lens might have up to 30% of its glass weight in thorium.
There's uncoated and coated thoriated lenses, by the way.
>>
>>3822252
looks good anon but i'm going to need this photo explained to me.
>>
>>3822272
His nickname is “the octagon”
>>
>>3822252
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/linebrell/albums/72157687880006093
Wow, i am thoroughly impressed, did you shoot the bike wide open?
>>
>>3822272
Training knife fight at folk fest.
>>
>>3822273
does it have to do with the dimensions of his forehead?
>>
>>3822252
how did you like the fd 200 2.8?
>>
>>3822276
Yes. I shoot with manuals mostly only in 2 modes: open wide for bokeh and stopped down to f8 at infinity.

Another cheap and good lens is OM Zuiko 28/3.5. Same price 40-50$, but it's very sharp stopped down.
>>
>>3822282
I prefer Jupiter-21M (200/4) more, i can use Lens Turbo with it also.
Canon FD is hard in nailing proper focus and there are a lot defects from shaking, even with steady grip and 1/300-1/500 i notice linear smudges. It also a bit soft wide open.
>>
>>3822286
I wonder if they cover a crop medium format circle ... looking for very sharp lenses that cover those sensors.
>>
Pentax M series are low key amazing. Extremely compact, but great IQ
>>
>>3822257
You still never denied advocating the seizure and destruction of vintage Takumars
>>
>>3821621
35/1.8
>>
>>3821623
Complete BS
>>
>>3820981
Angenieaux 180mm f/2.3

Zeiss 250mm f5.6 for Hasselblad
>>
>>3821800
Im the anon with a Canon 200mm 1.8.


I watched this debate about Thorium containing glass and the general consensus was the radiation hazard was minimal and you can fix the yellowing of the glass with a UV lamp.


This talk is just raw autisim.
>>
File: 442MichaelSoft-2.jpg (515 KB, 714x1000)
515 KB
515 KB JPG
my pair is a Helios 44-2 f/2 and a Makinon 135mm f2.8. I rarely use anything else, and i havent found a decent wide angle M42 mount prime yet

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.1 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution150 dpi
Vertical Resolution150 dpi
Image Created2020:08:13 16:39:29
Exposure Time1/640 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3822288
thanks
>>
>>3822687
It's not "excellent," as its still kind of soft and has a bit of focus breathing, but the Vivitar "wide angle MC" lenses with serials starting with 28 are decent.
>>
>>3822969
what do you recommend in its place?
>>
>>3820958
I have the SMC Tak 135 f3.5. It's dreamy.
>>
>>3822663
Sunlight works better.

I left mine be because I dont mind a little warmth, makes for cleaner shadows imo
>>
>>3823090
dreamy meaning soft or meaning beautiful rendering
>>
>>3821773
>>>this anons microwave and mobile phone emits alpha and beta particles

You need a tinfoil hat anon, literally.
>>
>>3821087
pfft...you want god tier it's got to be the Nikkor pre-Ai 50 f/1.4
>>
>>3823356
I prefer the 35 f1.4 and its exploding bokeh
>>
>>3823390
nikkor?
>>
Whats the best budget 35/23mm options? Can someone please help me out
>>
>>3823595
Yes
The 35/1.4 Nikkor and the Vivitar 28/1.9 both exhibit exploding or "zooming" bokeh
>>
>>3823726
Pretty busy looking
>>
>>3823716
>>
>>3823744
I think the effect it's supposed to give is making your subject look like they're in a tunnel of light
>>
File: _DSC9929.jpg (418 KB, 1000x563)
418 KB
418 KB JPG
Which one would you keep out of these? I plan to sell all but one or two but it's hard to decide.
>C/Y 50mm 1.4 Planar
>Takumar 50mm 1.4
>Summicron R 50mm f2
>Canon 50mm 1.4
>Nikkor 50mm 1.8

Most likely will sell the canon as it feels plasticky. The Nikon is sharp as any of them. But can't really decide for the others. Also kind of stupid to have this many of the same focal length.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7M2
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 3.2.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:02:18 23:55:20
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating2000
Brightness-2.1 EV
Exposure Bias0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3823864
I guess most wideangles with large apertures get that.
>>
>>3823951
Keep the Canon and the Nikon and sell the rest.
>>
>>3824032
Summicron and Planar are keepers (who tf throws away Leica and Zeiss glass?), the Canon and Takumar should get sold
>>
File: oh boy.gif (693 KB, 339x279)
693 KB
693 KB GIF
>>3821623
stop talking out of your ass, anon
I know this is 4chan, but still
>>
>>3820934
Eh, I'd rather just buy some cheap Chinese lenses like the ones from Meike. Great "artsy" characteristics and no two lenses are perfectly alike (just like the good ol' days). They're cheap, come in a variety of crop sensor mounts and they're brand new so you don't have to deal with fungus or other crap. But if you want to go the vintage route, look for Canon FD lenses.
>>
>>3821825
>>3821822
>Accidentally drop my takumar
>area is now chernobyl
>>
Anyone know of any old lenses with hexagonal or pentagonal apertures? They can give a really unique bokeh with hexagons/pentagons. I have a 35mm zeiss jena flektogon that I love.
>>
>>3824663
Most of them have 6-blade apertures.
>>
What Minolta lenses can compete with the others mentioned in this thread?

They don't seem to get much love by anybody and I don't know of any that is Carl Zeiss level sharp.
>>
The 200mm f4 super takumar is an embodied dick joke, especially when adapted to mirrorless.
>>
>>3824897
Why not the 2.5 200mm
>>
>>3824897
I don't see how, pretty normal size for a 200mm. Beercan by Minolta™ seems more of a joke to me.
>>
>>3820953
old zoom = trash
almost 100%
you need modern computer aided design to get good designs for zoom lenses
>>
>>3820934
Why adapt it when you can just use the camera it was made for?
>>
>>3825005
because old slrs are cheap and shitty
>>
>>3824966
Because people don't care about K-mount and most don't know about the 200/2.5
>>
>>3825008
So were most lenses. What's your point?
>>
>>3824975
Add the lens hood and an M42->NEX adapter, and you get a foot-long 60mm OD stack of parts.
>>
>>3825016
the bodies were shit. i answered your question. now whats your point? enjoy your ae-1 friend
>>
>>3825022
>the bodies were shit
That is highly speculative anon but the lenses were equally as shit/nonshit. Why do you want to use shitty lenses but not shitty yet perfectly usable cameras? Do you only enjoy certain flavours of shit while finding others unpalatable? Are you a connoisseur of shit anon? Enjoy your soviet memeglass adapted micro four turds I guess.
>>
>>3825002
lol, computer aided was a thing back in the 60s already
>>
>>3825031
Seething fuji tranny.
MFT lives rent free in your head.
>>
>>3824656
this lol
>>
>>3825034
>Seething fuji tranny.
I'm sorry to hear about that anon, what they did to you wasn't right.
>MFT lives rent free in your head
kek not really. But you are a acting like a clown so I just assumed that you use some kind of joke camera.
>>
>>3825031
ae-1 fags cope so hard
>>
>>3825034
mft is dead and irrelevant i feel bad for you
>>
are there any good vintage 23mm lenses?
>>
>>3825439
Real Chad's use the Pellix
>>
File: 1586294268715.jpg (25 KB, 400x334)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
I leave this one on my camera all the time. It's basically perfect.
>>
>>3826672
SMC Tak 55/1.8 is better
>>
>>3826840
If I didn't have this one already, I would probably go for one of the SMC Takumars
>>
>>3826380
>>
>>3826380
I really don't think so, the lens i've seen and tried have the edges smeared and tons of CA, wide and ultra wide got fine tuning post 2000's

Maybe there's some crazy expensive lens that was actually really good but not a sub 100 bucks for sure.
>>
>>3826388
the Picrel?
>>
>>3827206
feels bad
>>
File: brainlet-w-camera.png (15 KB, 230x246)
15 KB
15 KB PNG
>>3821632
>>3821712
This is why mirrorless is superior

> look through OVF
> get alpha particles emitted into your eyes and die

> look through EVF
> sensorbro blocks all that shit

SLRfigs are literally being mogged by their lenses.
>>
>>3827435
>he thinks the sensor isn't emitting even worse radiation
kek
>>
>>3826380
RF designs, yeah.
SLR designs, nah. Late '80s maybe, the Yashica/Contax distagons are good even by modern standards, but not really vintage, nor very cheap.
>>
>>3827435
Anon, the poster bitching about thorium has a petition to outlaw the sale of all radioactive lenses, he wants to make your Takumars and Industars ILLEGAL
>>
File: apuhipstergiggle.jpg (84 KB, 710x577)
84 KB
84 KB JPG
>>3820934
Nikon duh
>>
>>3820934
>Best vintage lenses
Are modern samyang lenses, if we're looking at price to performance.
>>
>>3827496
Damn, based. I have 2 radioactive Takumars, if he does that the price will skyrocket.
>>
>>3821623
the part that yellows is not the part that is radioactive.


>>3821630
>>3821632
>>3821712
the radioactive part is a weak amount of weak radiation that is less harmful than the potassium in bananas.
>>
>>3821825
yep

>>3824656
yes
>>
>>3823951
By the way anon, the Canon FD 50 1.4 is not plastic. Mine is having paint flakes fall off, and it's very clearly alluminum under the very thick paint.
>>
>>3827554
>everything is based contrarian opinion
Do you read Norman Vincent Peale books?
>>
>>3827681
its definitely not plastic, its heavy and cold
>>
>>3827554
>>3827496
wtf should i get rid of my smc taks... i dont want radiations bros
>>
>>3827878
Just don't smash it with a hammer and snort the dust.
>>
>>3827878
Send it to me anon, they will pair nicely with my Spotmatic.
>>
>>3827435
> get alpha particles emitted into your eyes and die

Our 70+ year old camera technician is still healthy and doing fine. Only thing that changed was his eye color due to cleaning thousands of radioactive lenses during his lifetime.
>>
>>3829216
Can't tell if trolling or serious, 7/10 nice bait - what color did they change from and into, and how the fuck?
>>
>>3827435
>unwilling to die for this craft
ngmi kiddo
>>
>>3827435
>mirrorlessfag
>not understanding physics
kek, imagine my shock
Alpha is definitely not a problem, beta may be but it's doubtful. The real issue is gamma.
Alpha becomes problematic at high speeds, like with cosmic rays.
>>3827973
This and keep them at a good distance and preferably enclosed in a thick metal box. Honestly a geiger counter is a good idea, if you can put them far enough or behind enough metal/concrete that the levels are the same as the background radiation where you are then it's safe.
>>3827496
nice headcanon
>>
>>3829383
>nice headcanon
You've done nothing to disprove it and your continued tirade on thoriated lenses shows you have that intent
>>
>>3829384
No, you're extrapolating because you want me to say that thoriated lenses are perfectly innocuous when they're not and should be handled with care.
I have no issues with radioactive sources if they're properly cared for, but uninformed people and radiation are a terrible combination.
Timmy sleeps next to his Aero Ektar f/6.3 for years because he was told there was nothing to worry about. Years down the line, cancer.
All because some dipshit was scared that educating people on the dangers of radiation would cause them to be banned and confiscated. It's like saying that teaching people gun safety leads to gun confiscations. Guess what, it's the opposite. The average moron pushing for gun grabs has no idea of gun safety, let alone ever shot one in their life.
>>
>>3829233
They turned red and now he can see through walls and women's clothes, obviously.
>>3829392
Not him but do you think they would actually cause cancer? What about leaving a radioactive Takumar on a camera loaded with film for long periods? Will it haze the film or anything like that? It seems like they should have known these things when they produced the lenses.
>>
>>3829402
There's varying degrees of radiation exposure, but sleeping with the lens nearby will 100% cause cancer down the line.

Mitakon zhongyi glass is radioactive but like 1000x less than those Takumar
>>
>>3829402
>Not him but do you think they would actually cause cancer?
Radiation is all about exposure so if you get irradiated regularly it will. It also follows the inverse square law, 2 meters will give you 1/4 of the radiation a separation of one meter from the source would. Different particles require different materials to stop them, it's largely dependent on the type of radiation. Gamma is the hardest to stop, it's photons just like visible light but with higher energy, undulating in extremely short waves.
>What about leaving a radioactive Takumar on a camera loaded with film for long periods? Will it haze the film or anything like that? It seems like they should have known these things when they produced the lenses.
It could probably haze the film indeed if left for an extremely long time. People didn't leave the rolls in the camera for long periods of time though. And pure thorium has a different radiation profile than its daughter isotopes. As it decays, some isotopes show up with higher gamma emission levels. When the lens was new, it emitted different particles and rays than it does now.
Radiographic film (essentially the same as photographic, but there's silver emulsion on both sides usually to achieve higher speeds) was used to make dosimeter badges.
Also if you go with undeveloped film in an airport and you let it be scanned with the X-ray machine it will also be fogged. It depends on the sensitivity too. Faster film is more sensitive, just like with light. ISO 800 and above will become completely unusable if put through a scanner. Lower sensitivities will be affected to a smaller extent.
Also a fun fact: in industrial radiography, what is called the "camera" is actually the source of radiation. You simply put the film where you'll project the image. So the "camera" is more like a speedlight. And the "lenses" are made of metal, collimators. They function in a comparable way to flash snoots and grids, you don't want stray radiation.
>>
>>3829417
Also about this, Mitakons have lanthanum, unlike thorium the radioactivity is very minor. In fact it started being used to avoid using thorium because of the radiation concerns. Some have a small percentage of thorium added to the lanthanum though.
Lanthanum also replaced thorium in GTAW welding for the same reason. There is a radioactive isotope of lanthanum but it's extremely rare, meanwhile all actinides (thorium and its more famous cousins uranium and plutonium are all part of this group) are radioactive. However, lanthanum is present in minerals that sometimes have actinides in the mix so if it's not purified enough trace amounts of them may be in it and cause radiation.
>>
what the fuck? i thought you retards were meming
>>
>>3829444
It's all about being aware of what you're dealing with and handling it correctly. Don't panic but be aware of what you need to be careful about, Stalker.
Also that Roentgen/Sievert equivalence there is dubious at best. Calculating the equivalent/effective dose (the one expressed in Sievert) isn't that simple.
As far as my own stuff goes, living in an apartment and storing my lenses in my own bedroom the most exotic I'm willing to go with vintage glass is lead and lanthanum.
>>
>>3829392
Klaus Schwab won't let you keep your non-radioactive glass.
>>
>>3829417
>>3829436
Thanks. I have known for a while that some of my Takumars were radioactive but I just assumed that it was a trivial dosage, like just enough to detect and for some youtuber to make a big fuss over. I'll make sure that I don't store unexposed film in the same bag now. And I guess I'll just continue not sleeping with the lens under my pillow.
>>
>>3820935
The yashica 50mm 1.9 is a nice alternative to the helios
>>3820934
I'm quite a fan of Contax's zooms, they're comparable to modern zoom lenses in image quality and most are cheap in comparison
>>
Minolta MD Rokkor x 50mm f1.4 is goat.
>>
>>3829417
>zhongyi glass is radioactive
chinks also put lead in childrens toys so...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_export_recalls
>>
File: Canon_pellix.jpg (401 KB, 1772x1329)
401 KB
401 KB JPG
>>3827252
No, anon. The Pellix, as in the Canon Pellix translucent mirror film camera
>>
>>3830292
I have one of these, I can confirm. Pretty good for vintage.
>>
File: Lens.jpg (1023 KB, 6000x3376)
1023 KB
1023 KB JPG


[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6400
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20.0.2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/8 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating400
Brightness-3.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width6000
Image Height3376
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3831351
>Minolta 50mm 1.7 taken with a Minolta 50mm 1.4
fyi.
Don't ask why I have 2.
>>
>>3831352
I've got both of those and I think I've also got a Minolta 50/2.0 kicking around here somewhere, so no judgment from me.
>>
>>3830292
Getting it tomorrow, Minolta doesn't get as much attention as it should, it's pretty ok glass all around.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaAOMPvlTaU
>>
>>3831372
>Minolta doesn't get as much attention as it should
I think this is probably since, before the advent of mirrorless, it was basically unusable for digital. The only other mount with a short enough flange was Four Thirds, and that still gave you a 2x crop, so wasn't a super useful thing to do. Plus Minolta was always a lesser-known brand after Canon and Nikon (and possibly even behind Pentax and Olympus in the 35mm days, and then barely touched digital before they gave up and sold themselves to Sony)

Now that there are full-frame mirrorless mounts out there that make it super easy to adapt, it's great.
>>
File: flw1.jpg (257 KB, 3000x2000)
257 KB
257 KB JPG
Minolta 50mm Macro is nice too

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6400
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20.0.2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/3 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-3.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width3000
Image Height2000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: DSC_0001-27.jpg (547 KB, 1600x1059)
547 KB
547 KB JPG
>>3831395
Minolta could design some decent optics when they wanted to. They're still around making huge-ass copy machines and using their same 80's logo like a boss.
>>
Cheap old wide angles ain't sharp, but they can be "acceptably sharp" in the right conditions. Have these 100% crops.
>>
>>3831496
And perhaps a more fair comparison.

I think I'll be keeping the soligor, honestly, because it can close down farther. You're supposed to use these things outside, stopped down, and relying on the principle of "acceptable sharpness."
>>
>>3831417
Those wear designed by Leica btw
>pic related
>40mm M-Rokkor

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:03:02 16:44:41
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3831390
Interesting, thanks for the explanation anon!
>>
>>3831496
Both are dogshit tbqh.

I had a Soligor zoom I got for 10 bucks at an estate sale and later when adapting it, it was barely useable.
>>
>>3831390
Yeah, Canon FD and Minolta MD were the two mounts that everyone avoided because they were not DSLR friendly. FD's prices eventually recovered (sadly for me, who did not take the absolutely stonking deals at the time for 50 1.2s, 100 2.0, 85 1.8 etc.), Minolta was always a bit of a second choice.
>>
>>3831503
Why are Leica "fans" such closeted Nazis? They freaked out like Nazis over the M5 design, freaked out the same over the CL killing the M line, and even still bitched about Minolta lenses being shoddily built while their own lenses collapse into pieces if you give them a mean look.
>>
>>3832101
The worst thing about the M5 is how far the viewfinder window is into the centre of the camera making your nose squish up against the back of the camera (and the fact that it takes mercury batteries), the CLE did the viewfinder placement right and IMO has the best viewfinder of any M camera. Best thing about the M5 is the shutter speed dial desu, the thing is still ugly as fuck tho.

>freaked out the same over the CL killing the M line
They did not freak out over the CL/CLE killing the M line it was Leica themselves who freaked out, the CL/CLE was cheaper and eating into the sales of the M series. I guess Leica wanted to stay as a rich persons camera.

>their own lenses collapse into pieces if you give them a mean look.
>things that never happened
The M-Rokkors were fantastically made I've never heard any bitching about their build quality besides the M-Rokkor 28mm (which I owned and used) and was rightfully criticised with the whole white spot issue.
>pic related 28mm m-rokkor

Your /pol/ is showing btw

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:03:03 14:09:49
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
File: P3020422.jpg (532 KB, 2044x1532)
532 KB
532 KB JPG
>>3822429
Hello there anon, just got it today, it is pretty damn good, thanks. the 85/1.7 and 50/1.4 are also tack sharp one stop down.

Pic related is the 85mm wide-open on MFT and a 100% crop.

>>3831555
What prices did those lenses have? you can't find a 50/1.2 for less than 300 USD and it probably gonna be hazy.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATION
Camera ModelE-M10MarkII
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2021:03:02 14:44:50
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating500
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width4608
Image Height3456
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: P3020521.jpg (228 KB, 2309x1732)
228 KB
228 KB JPG
>>3832280
Another 85/1.7 pic wide open, no crop.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationLeft-Hand, Bottom
>>
>>3832283
(my bad, f2.8)
>>
>>3832283
pretty!
>>
File: Vivitar.png (455 KB, 1199x300)
455 KB
455 KB PNG
>>3831515
To be fair, revisiting the shot at ISO 400 instead of 6400 makes it look less terrible.
>>
are 300$ vintage lenses even worth it or should I just be putting that towards modern glass at this point?
>>
>>3833401
If you want sharpness over aesthetics definitely go modern.
You can find sharp vintage, but the technology and coatings are all "outdated" in terms of technological advancement.

But you can't pull a 'vintage' look with them, if that is what you really want, a $300 price point is justifiable - if at least only to you.

The other reason is if you can't afford a particular prime with the speed you want, something is better than nothing.
>>
>>3833418
srs question what if I want sharpness and aesthetics? meaning lenses that render uniquely but aren't soft.
>>
Zuiko 50mm 1.4
Zuiko 100mm 2.8
>>
>>3833450
>>
>>3833453
Sharpest eye in the west
>>
>>3833444
Older double-gauss designs (like the Helios 44-2, or the Biotar it's based on) might get you there. These are the lenses that get swirly at the edges, and the Helios just happens to be an example that exhibits it strongly.
>>
>>3833450
>>3833453
Stop being a child and get yourself an 85mm f/2 and 55mm f/1.2
>>
>>3830085
The zeiss 70 210 is great AND cheap
>>
>>3831372
Zuiko is good, the 250mm f2 and 350mm f2.8 are amazing.


Angenieux is also very good esp the 70 210 f3.5 and 280mm f2.3
>>
Best 28mm lense?
>>
>>3820935
Helios is a GOD and they're still thrown at you for laughable prices where I live
>>
>>3822294
I have a ton of m-series but just got two K series and they incredble. Heavier but better build
>>
File: contax 80-200.jpg (497 KB, 1500x1000)
497 KB
497 KB JPG
>>3834549
Definitely a based lens. It's the 80-200 for me though. Its so insanely cheap for what it is (~$200), and great throughout the aperture and zoom range. Seriously the best price-performance ratio for any lens. The 28-85 is also great and cheap

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6100
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/4000 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Brightness5.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 45942097044_33faf03216_k.jpg (405 KB, 2048x1365)
405 KB
405 KB JPG
>>3833450
50/1.4 has sweet cat-eyes bokeh.
>>
File: DSCF8962.jpg (115 KB, 1700x1133)
115 KB
115 KB JPG
I'd say that ~100 usd is max that vast majority of vintage glass is worth. For more you can actually buy modern primes and modern primes, especially with mirrorless design can be fucking excellent. Pic related shoot with samyang 50 f1.2 The lens have character on its own and I'm glad I was shooting with it and not with something like minolta 50 f1.7.

Vintage is fun for messing with lens character, but buy cheap like helios, zenit/zenitar, jupiter, maybe some takumars. Don't fall for memes of canon/hexar/minolta 50 f1.2 that cost just as much as modern af lenses.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-T20
Camera SoftwareCapture One 20 Windows
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution200 dpi
Vertical Resolution200 dpi
Exposure Time1/110 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness2.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length50.00 mm
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>3835078
Most of them look like >>3832654. Not great.
>>
Would you import a mir-1 from ebay?
>>
>>3836064
>He thinks f1.2 at the price of an average 50mm f1.8-f1.4 is bad value
You're only mad because you think AF justifies spending $400 on a 50mm f1.4
>>
could anyone please recommend a vintage macro lens I can use for scanning 35mm negatives?
>>
File: IMG_8424.jpg (313 KB, 1000x667)
313 KB
313 KB JPG
Off topic from thread, but it's a vintage lens question.

I'm looking to sell this Minolta MC Rokkor PF 588mm f/1.4. And I'm a bit stuck on the price. Ebay prices are whack, what would you guys be prepared to pay for it (in Yuros if possible)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 4.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:03:11 19:53:46
Exposure Time4 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating125
Lens Aperturef/7.1
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: IMG_8425.jpg (471 KB, 1000x667)
471 KB
471 KB JPG
>>3837614

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 4.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:03:11 19:53:41
Exposure Time1.3 sec
F-Numberf/7.1
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating125
Lens Aperturef/7.1
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length100.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3820953
no your much better getting a 200 2.8 or 200 3.5. old zooms are trash. But there was a few designs floating around for 200 2.8 and darker that are real good. even the soviets made one that goes for no money.
>>
>>3822687
Mir 1b would suit you fucking commie.
>>
Pentacon 50mm any good?
>>
>>3837614
>>3837615
My local camera shop has one for $70 USD in 'avg' condition
But it depends on the image quality (fungus/haze/etc). I can literally see the shit in the element on your 2nd picture. Do they show up on the images?
Even in excellent condition I wouldn't pay more than $100 for one personally
>>
>>3820934
all i shoot is vintage. SO FAR the best ones ive had are

Pentax 50 1.7 I love this lens would recommend. creeping up in price as well. sharp as fuck even wide open.

cosina 24 2.8 very sharp centers. Close enough focus at 30 cm

hanimex 28 2.8 great colour rendering and lovely feeling lens. would recomend cheap as chips

ricoh 50 2mm great sharpness might be a touch sharper than the pentax. awful plastic body though
>>
Good vintage lens sites to buy from?
>>
any good vintage macro lens I can use for scanning 35mm negatives?
>>
Thoughts on these "Zeiss" Industar 26 rebuilds on etsy? I'll admit that I like the look.
>>
>>3837992
pretty fucking gay nglfam
pro black is the best, reflections suck dick
>>
Mamiya 80mm 1.9 hands down..
>>
>>3837996
lmao no
>>
>>3837992
they look cool and if it was 50 instead of 200 fucking dollars for an industar lens i mightve
>>
>>3822687
>i havent found a decent wide angle M42 mount prime yet
What is the Takumar 35mm f2?
>>
>>3837656
I have one, I don't think it's worth more than 60 bucks even in great condition, get the 50/1.4 instead.
>>
vintage macro lens I can use for scanning 35mm negatives?
>>
>>3839121
60mm 2.8d Micro Nikkor on a proper bellows with tilt, shift., rotate, and swing movements
>>
>>3839170
why is it autofocus
>>
>>3839185
It's screw drive, so it can be used fine on full manual focus cameras if you set the lens to manual focus and just keep it on that.
>>
This seems inflated.
>>
>>3839209
That's because it is inflated. Most soviet lenses are because of the lomography tax
>>
>>3839223
any soviet lenses besides helios that are worth it?
>>
>>3839209
>flek
what
>>
>>3839249
Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 Flektogon. CONUS pricing for those is around the $200 to $250 mark, which isn't a huge % difference compared to the budget-end 35mm lenses the Mir-1b used to share space with (Soligor, Auto-Chinon, Kamero, Vivitar).
>>
>>3839239
Helios-103 is decently sharp and "modern".
Jupiter-3 (50mm f/1.5) if you like the Sonnar look.
Jupiter-9 for sonnar look on a longer focal (85mm f/2).
The latter two are great portrait/people lenses.
>>
>>3839253
Helios 81 is good too, it comes in Nikon F mount as well as M42
>>
>>3839253
what is "the sonnar look"
>>
>>3839830
Soft at wide open, more "glow" than normal.
Picks up contrast and sharpness very quickly stopped down, more quickly than normal.
Good bokeh at all apertures* due to the many, rounded blades (circular bokehballs at all apertures) and the optical design (evenly lit bokehballs, no outlining)

*at wide open you get a bit of outlining that goes away even half a stop stopped down, so wide open is more like a specialty look but slightly stopped down it behaves normally

Also field curvature, which is objectively a flaw, but will increase subject separation when used on people, relatively centrally framed. This is exaggerated by the high centre contrast even at wide apertures.
Extreme corners never get really sharp.
Slight distortion even at 50mm, usually not relevant but I'm noting it cause it's weird for a 50mm lens to have pincushion distortion.

That's pretty much the Sonnar look.
It's a good people lens and general walkabout/street lens, because it's like having two lenses in one: all the nice portrait qualities at wide apertures (nice bokeh and central contrast, with an extra specialty "glowy" look at wide open), and a normal, contrasty lens stopped down from f/4 or f/5.6 or so.
But it's pretty much the worst thing you could get for architecture, for instance.
>>
>>3839847
thank you very much
>>
best camera bodies for vintage lenses? Have a nikon d3200 but read it's not the best for them
>>
>>3840066
r6, xs10, a7c, etc.
>>
>>3840066
The tricky thing is getting a mount with a short flange distance so you have room for adapters and maybe a speed booster. E-Mount works. MFT would too, but I'd suspect the sensor would out-resolve the lens.
>>
>>3840066
Anything mirrorless will do.
Full frame would be best, otherwise you won't be able to find any wides for a reasonable price.
Anything wider than 28mm (which will have the FoV of ~42mm on APS-C) and vintage, is usually expensive and/or not that good.
>>
>>3840077
On MFT not really, at 2x crop factor all the vintage lenses I've used, even very good ones, blow and look terrible for what they can accomplish on FF.
>>
>>3840088
There you go. These lenses were designed for 35mm film (mostly), and on smaller sensors the diffraction spots are going to be bigger in comparison to the total image size.
>>
File: _DSC4143-2.jpg (803 KB, 3000x2000)
803 KB
803 KB JPG
Best vintage lens for APS-C?

Apart from the shitty kit lens that came with my camera I have a 30mm f1.4 that I use almost always, and a 105mm f2.8 that I use whenever I don't use the 30mm, like for macro for example or tele-landscape stuff.
What should I get?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2021:02:17 01:49:48
Exposure Time1/200 sec
Brightness-3.7 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3840473
What hole are you trying to fill? I'm pretty pleased with my 200mm Tak even on a dumb adapter, but it's pretty specialized for taking pictures of geese.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-C3
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.22
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2021:03:15 19:19:52
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Brightness0.8 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3840891
I could see it go different routes, I'd like a fast wide angle for astro/night-stuff, and I've also been thinking about a fast 50mm that I could use as a portrait lens on aps-c (my 105mm is a bit ridiculous for portraits on crop..), and just as a normal fast 50 when I inevitably get a full frame for better low-light performance.
>>3840082 mentioned how vintage lenses wider than 28mm are hot garbage or expensive though, so I'm leaning towards the 50 as it'd be more useful short term.
>>
check out this rarity I got in the mail yesterday
>>
best vintage lenses for a 30s look?
>>
>>3841483
You can't get a "30's look" by just changing your lens.

You'd probably need photoshop. I'm assuming you mean the really blurry/distressed look from photos that have aged 90 years
>>
>>3841253
>when I inevitably get a full frame
Pick a mount that you can adapt with a speed booster now, and use a dumb adapter later. This way you won't have to re-learn framing.

Good lens mount candidates (basically, SLR platforms):
M42
Minolta MC / MD
Nikon F
Canon FD
Contax/Yashica
Pentax K

Bodies:
Anything with a register near 20mm like E-mount or L-mount.
>>
>>3841483
What about a lens from actually the 30's?
Get an old uncoated tessar.
>>
Are all lenses standard size? Are there brands that can't be adapted to these?
>>
>>3841936
No lens is “standard size” (I guess you mean mount) unless it says so.
No lens is compatible with other mounts, unless it says so.
Not all features will work when adapting (auto aperture, autofocus, whatever), unless it say so.
>>
>>3841919
>No Leica R mount, Rollei QBM mount, or Praktica B mount
>>
>>3841919
>Pick a mount that you can adapt with a speed booster now
Dude speed boosters are nutty expensive though, and as soon as I get a FF they're useless.
I already have a manual lens with Minolta mount, and have been looking at another in the meantime, so if I was to get a speed booster it'd be a Minolta to Sony E one I guess. But fuck, they're 400€+

>>3842039
>Rollei QBM mount
been looking at a Voigtländer 50mm Color Ultron with QBM-mount, seems like a nice lens
>>
>>3842150
There's also quite a few Zeiss lenses in QBM mount too, The main downside is the QBM mount cameras (SL35, SL35M/ME/E. SL200F/3003) aren't as durable as their competitors, with the Singapore-built bodies having Soviet-tier quality variation between copies
>>
>>3842161
*SL2000F
>>
>>3842150
Well, there's always the chink ones (pixco/roxsen). I had to calibrate mine to get to infinity focus, but it only cost me ~$100.
>>
>>3842343
>there's always the chink ones (pixco/roxsen)
I had no idea these existed; would you recommend it? What do you mean by calibrate it?
>>
File: 100 perrcent crop.jpg (536 KB, 1500x1000)
536 KB
536 KB JPG
>>3843539
I've only ever bought one, so I don't know if the quality assurance is good, but I don't have any deal-breakers about it. By "calibration," I mean moving the lens stack inside the adapter in or out to match infinity focus (or close enough) according to one or two on-lens scales.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-C3
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.10.22
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2021:03:19 18:52:08
White Point Chromaticity0.3
Exposure Time1/320 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramShutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Brightness0.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationUnknown
Image Width4912
Image Height3264
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: Quality_Image.jpg (1.36 MB, 3000x2000)
1.36 MB
1.36 MB JPG
>>3842343
I bought one of these (Pixco)

I swear to god, its the most garbage shit in existence. You can literally see the air bubbles in the glass. It's not optical glass.

Does it work? Yes. Does it make everything terrible soft and extreme CA? Yes. So much so, the pictures are unusable other than for your own "fun".

Here is an example. I spent time to "nail focus"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6400
Camera SoftwareCapture One 21 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/250 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness1.2 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Image Width3000
Image Height2000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 1575951277526.jpg (206 KB, 800x584)
206 KB
206 KB JPG
>>3820935
I got into shooting films with old Soviet lenses because I was broke, they were cheap, and I liked the look. I can now buy any lens I want and I still choose to shoot pretty much exclusively with these. Started with a Helios 44-2 and expanded from there. I've tried out other Helios lenses since then, a lot of the Mir lenses, some Jupiter, the Kiev-16U trio, etc. The set I work with right now is:
>35mm Helios 33. My favorite. Old 35mm cinema lens for half frame cameras. I use it on the Pocket 4K so it's basically a 45mm lens. 2.0 aperture, but needs to be used mindfully since using it wide open turns whatever isn't in focus around the edges into clouds.
>58mm Helios 44-2. The memes are real.
>20mm Mir-20M. Good wide lens. Interesting flares. Kickass focusing distance, practically macro for a wide. Too soft to be usable if you crop in at all, but excellent if you work with that in mind.
The Mir 1-B would be there too, but the focusing distance was a recurring problem for me, so I cycled it out.
I don't recommend getting into old lenses in general if you're a gearfag who worships sharpness, but that goes double for Soviets. They can look fantastic and they're honestly just fun to collect and shoot with. Ignore joyless retards. Like they say with handguns, the best one for you is whichever one you do best with.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width800
Image Height716
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
Image Created2019:12:13 16:54:24
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width800
Image Height584
>>
File: at.png (125 KB, 500x500)
125 KB
125 KB PNG
>>3829378
>>
>>3820935
helios bokeh makes me nauseated
>>
>>3843881
>>3843877
Have you tried these in low-light? Maybe if you shoot wide open in low light the softness of the speed booster won't be that detrimental.
Otherwise it sadly seems to kinda ruin the quality a bit
>>
I fell hard for the Soviet meme lenses when starting out, mostly for the price, but liked them so much I never ended up bothering with much modern glass. I ended up converting my old Canon APSC to full-spectrum IR and every Soviet lens I've tried has been free of hotspots and delivers great (or at least usable) IR images. Plus they all look pretty great on the Lumix S1 full-frame I upgraded to last year. It's nice being able to use the same set of lenses across both systems, but I'm just an unpaid hobbyist so who gives a shit

>Helios 44m 58mm (great)
>Mir 1b 37mm (good)
>Jupiter-9 85mm (great)
>Jupiter-37A 135mm (personal favourite)
>Granit-11 80-200mm (shitty zoom, wouldn't recc)
>MTO 3M-5A 500mm (mirror lens that weighs a ton but is pretty fun, fixed at f/8)

>>3843930
kek, it really is tragic that like 6 people from that production died of the same rare cancer. I only found out recently that they actually shot Stalker twice because the first version got destroyed on the way back to Moscow or whatever. Wonder what that original version was like, supposedly it was extremely different. And maybe if they hadn't had to reshoot the whole thing they wouldn't have taken in such lethal amounts of radiation, but who knows
>>
>>3844150
>twice
I believe they had to shoot it basically three times. There was the first attempt, then a second attempt after everything they'd shot was ruined halfway through production, and a third time after the cinematographer fucked up the film again and made everything blue. The second and third versions are supposed to be pretty much the same, but the first version was different and blew a lot of their money on footage that never got used. The scene with a few tanks and trucks rusted over in a field used to have an entire dozens and dozens of tanks, for example.
I once came home after a very hard shoot but fulfilling day to find that I had completely lost the entire first half of that day. It was the best footage I'd ever shot at that time. I was proud of it, it was gone, and it wasn't possible to replicate what we had. The reshoot was crushing and impossible for anyone to put their heart into. I can't imagine having to reshoot a feature three separate times. Fuck me, that's a true love.
>>
>>3844098
It doesn't get "clearer", no - its the glass pixco uses.
I suppose there is a reason Metabones charges 400 USD or something. BUT if you read some of the caveats with Metabones, it actually lists a lineup of lenses that doesn't work due to the baronet getting in the way (At least with the Minolta MD to E-mount) whereas Pixco you can use pretty much any lens, or at least I haven't found a lens I can't attach to it yet - for Minolta lenses.

My short suggestion is this: Skip the speedbooster. The lenses I've tried with just a regular converter turn out real real sharp; you just have to factor the 1.5 times crop into the focal length.
Otherwise, what I ultimately did when I got some extra money is get a full frame body so I could have that 1:1 ratio with the focal length.
>>
>>3844098
I mean, yeah, I can't tell the difference between the degradation from using a cheap speed booster and ISO grain. The main reason I don't notice the impact is that I rarely crop tight enough to notice.
>>
Anyone used the industar fed 10 50mm? Thoughts?
>>
>>3844098
>>3843881
Even a lens turbo looks better than this
>>
>>3843881
This is what made me sell my aps-c kit, speedbooster suck royal ass, and i really can't lower my standards to shooting it low-light at max aperture to dissimulate softness.

They all suck in one way or another, and when you factor autofocus into the mix, fuck that.
>>
>>3820962
looks ugly
>>
I think that helios sucks and is for poorfags.

Buy the biotar it's much better.
>>
>>3846345
which biotar
>>
>>3837614
>>3837615

Anon who asked for the price on this. Sold it for €70 in the end with the lens hood included. Buyer was really happy with it, so I guess people will buy anything these days.
>>
>>3847377
nigga you mean 58
>>
>>3846345
Biotar doesn't have Helios swirling backgrounds, it's more controlled.
Also the coatings are shit on the Helios but in the latter versions they are at least there.
>for poorfags
A Biotar costs sometimes 4 or 5 times, it's a matter of convenience.
>>
>>3820934
>ctrl-f "Tokina 90mm"
>0 results
breh
>>
>>3847439
>Tokina 90mm
is it good
>>
>>3847379
I miss-typed before. If you weren't not a braindead /p/een you wouldn't have felt the need to post that.
>>
Why has the Canon FD 135mm f2.0 doubled in price on the used market? Nobody has done a video on it
>>
>>3847623
seeing you get assmad made it worth it
>>
>>3847482
No it isn't, it's a piece of shit that nobody should be checking or seeing, and definitely not price scalping it for the last 3 years making it more rare to find and use like it was supposed to in all its glory for the bad lens it is.
>>
>>3847640
Eh, good for you if you believe that actually got me mad. Have a good day Anon.
>>
>>3821712
the radiation levels from even the most radioactive lenses held up to your skin/eyes won't cross any statistically significant threshold in increasing cancer risk.

When you factor in that they are attached to a camera body and only used for a few hours a week it's laughable that people still have this debate.

the issue is when you break radioactive glass. lots of fine inhalable beta and alpha emitting particles. that would really ruin your day.

I don't take many precautions or think about it really. some will go to the extremes and then fly for a few hours a year which is far worse than the exposure from the normal use of thoriated glass.

https://youtu.be/ZaAOMPvlTaU
>>
https://youtu.be/plxY0uOoEdc

Anyone tried this?
>>
>>3847975
the music for this video is max fresh
>>
>>3847975
>average photo dad discovers what step-down rings are for the first time
>>
This baby
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/olympus-om-100mm-12-0/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelNEX-5N
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.3 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2016:05:26 15:04:58
Exposure Time0.4 sec
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-1.5 EV
Exposure Bias1.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastSoft
SaturationLow
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3847382
>Biotar doesn't have Helios swirling backgrounds, it's more controlled.

You do get a swirly background, not as much as the helios admittedly, but you do get some.

And the glass is so much better on the biotar that it's worth sacrificing some of the swirl bro.

>Also the coatings are shit on the Helios but in the latter versions they are at least there.

It doesn't matter because biotar has the better glass.

Also I though that everyone wants the early 44-2 helios?

>A Biotar costs sometimes 4 or 5 times, it's a matter of convenience.

The helios is sharp in the wrong places, biotar has much better micro contrast.
>>
>>3848108
Stop acting, you didnt know, and neither did thousands of other people buying Helios and Biotar lenses out there.
>>
>>3849082
That's not the Zeiss Planar 135mm f/2
>>
>>3849554
Its impossible to get sharp corners and swirly bokeh. Swirl comes from front entrance being a little too small, kind of like that step down ring trick.
>>
>>3847639
Probably that media division video
>>
>>3849817
what if i want sharp corners and swirly bo-kah
>>
>>3849765
I did, I'm just too lazy to buy one
>>
Whats a good cheap macro lens for scanning film and the like?
>>
Thoughts on the Minolta 200mm f2.8 APO? For 300usd it seems like the best tele lens you could buy.
>>
>>3851141
It's not one the lenses he talked about
>>
File: FrmqPdA.jpg (143 KB, 1200x900)
143 KB
143 KB JPG
>>3853831
Any vintage 50mm macro like the Canon FD 50mm f3.5 + 25mm macro tube (picrel). It was nice and cheap and great for starting out but I'm looking at a modern macro now (maybe the laowa 100 mm) for better results and ease of use.
>>
File: DSC04241T90Super100.jpg (1.06 MB, 1080x1560)
1.06 MB
1.06 MB JPG
>>3821087
No it isn't. It's the same as any other double gauss 50/1.4.
>>3820934
50L absolutely yeets it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2019:02:19 19:43:06
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/0.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-8.5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceOther
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length0.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1080
Image Height1560
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessSoft
>>
File: A7R04090F2HP5OrangeRoll3.jpg (1.09 MB, 2048x1463)
1.09 MB
1.09 MB JPG
>>3823951
Zeiss and Canon, these will appreciate most.
If you want a 50mm to actually shoot buy the Milvus in F-mount if you shoot film or the RF 50/1.2L if you shoot digital.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM2
Camera SoftwareGIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/125 sec
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness-5.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2048
Image Height1463
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>3854274
imagine having this much time on your hands
>>
>>3854481
Lul
>>
>>3825032
and in the 80s everyone was using cad.
>>
>>3843881
spend time "nailing composition"
>>
>>3843877
nobody has ever validated infinity focus by going there and trying it.
>>
>>3820953
why did they drill the hole?
>>
>>3854407
Why can't anybody automate arbitrary lenses to autofocus? I don't get it. It's like we farmed our engineering off to retards. If Kodak still existed they could do it. Or Xerox. Or IBM. Is there anything left that is competent?!
>>
>>3858402
Such adapters exist, but they're a cheat. They're basically motor-driven Helicoid adapters, so they still rely on your initial guess in the manual focus lens.
>>
>>3858387
>Take a picture of something far away
>"Does this look as sharp as I can get?"
>Tweak speed booster, repeat test shot
>"Is that sharper or blurrier?"
>Tweak speed booster accordingly
>Repeat test shots and adjustments until satisfied
>>
File: spanner wrench.jpg (104 KB, 800x655)
104 KB
104 KB JPG
>>3858390
I don't know this lens, but pic related is my guess.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeMinolta Co., Ltd.
Camera ModelDiMAGE 7
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)197 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2005:04:09 02:45:28
Exposure Time1/180 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating100
Brightness1/5 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceDaylight
FlashFlash, Compulsory
Focal Length49.88 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height655
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3825034
meanwhile, you let fuji live rent free inside your head
>>
Anyone have an opinion of the Soligor 300mm F5.5? I'm looking for a cheap long lens for my x-t2 to see if I enjoy bird watching
>>
>>3825034
why do mft trannies all have inferiority complexes
>>
>>3824701
Shh, don’t bring them up. They’re not hipster taxed as badly as the others yet.
>>
>>3843929
this, basically
>>
>>3854253
No but he talked about the FD line
>>
>>3851876
Impossible
>>
>>3851876
If you think whats happening at the optical level with swirl, its a too nartow front opening restricting the aperture at the corners. Because the restriction is not uniform, the absolute edge has a way smaller apt than the middle, leading to some diffraction. Thats why you often see color smearing at the edges of swirly lenses too. Swirl just means the bokeh at the edges comes from smaller aperture than the middle. Helios lenses exentuate it by having barrel distortion on top of that.
>>
im interested in getting into some photography and I've decided on a Fuji xt20 but i wasnt sure about lenses my friend suggested I get a vintage lens and an adaptor but idk what type.

just for some extra info i want to take pictures and videos of my daily activities and basically have the camera to document what I'm seeing
>>
>>3859724
Don't get a vintage lens, get the 15-45mm XC kit lens, will serve you much better for that (even if EZ lenses are ass to use).
>>
>>3859730
thanks for the recommendation just had a quick look on ebay and the price seems reasonable, im really quite new so just having a specific lenses to research is so valuable ty
>>
any vintage lenses with unique bokeh?

>>3859724
i would dick around with a 35 or 50mm vintage lens for a while and then get an af lens. you'll appreciate the modern lens that much more.
>>
Olympus Zuiko OM lenses are nice and decent and easy to adapt. They're more expensive these days on Ebay than when I got them tho

Also the auto chinon lenses are fairly affordable and alright, altho need to test those out again
>>
File: 20210410-DSC00767.jpg (721 KB, 1831x1030)
721 KB
721 KB JPG
>>3861035
Tair-11a. A little bit of swirl with a Sonnar sharpness. Can't beat 20 blades.
Industar 61 L/Z has a "ninja star" aperture. Meyer Optik Görlitz Trioplan 100mm f/2.8 for "bubble bokeh".

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:10 20:56:08
Exposure Time1/160 sec
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Brightness1.4 EV
Exposure Bias-2 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length135.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
>>
>>3861064
>Tair-11
this looks fucking gorgeous. lovely stuff
>>
I'm planning to get an Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II body, what is the most affordable and effective vintage lens for street photography / architecture ?
>>
>>3861164
There's nothing good and affordable there, honestly.

Most affordable vintage wide angle lenses suck, MFT will double that, 28mm is the most easily obtainable wide angle lens and that's 56mm on your Oly. Not that i have anything against vintage glass but very wide + MFT is not a good combo. Get the 20mm f1.7 or the 14-42 kit lens.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.