Nikon:
> Z 24-120mm f4G
Sharp across the frame, even from f4. Has an additional 15mm over the regular 24-105mm lenses. It is also quite affordable at only $1050. This lens has me considering switching to Nikon. Combine this the lens below and Id have everything I need.
> Z 50mm f/1.8
Amazing optical quality. On par with the top-of-the-line 50mm f1.2s but is smaller and considerably cheaper. Of course the trade off is a stop less light. But 1.8 is still pretty good.
> Z 26mm f/2.8
This is the first ever pancake lens with autofocus for mirrorless cameras (at least to my knowledge). It can possibly make one of Nikon's smaller cameras pocketable.
> Z 800mm f/6.3
Sure, this is $6500 and therefore almost 10x the price of Canon's 800mm f11. But of course the IQ here is much better, and f6.3 vs f11 is a big deal. It is still a lot cheaper than Canon's or Sony's offerings when it comes to pro grade glass at this focal length ($6.5k vs $20k)

Sony:
> FE 20-70mm f4G
Their new, light weight and compact standard zoom seems very good. Sharp wide open and across the frame. Goes down 20% wider than a normal 24-70, which may mean that a lot of people may be able to skip their dedicated wide angle zoom altogether. This is a very interesting lens from Snoy.

I don't know Sony that well, so I am open to hearing what other unique offerings (that are so good that someone may want to buy a Sony camera because of it) has.

And what about Panasonic?

File: dfa50macro.jpg (99 KB, 666x832)

99 KB JPG

Wish I could find this (or equivalent) lens for my film SLR.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	1 dp
Vertical Resolution	1 dp

File: Pentax50mmMacro_229_1389176890.jpg (195 KB, 1000x662)

195 KB JPG

>>4150918
It produces excellent images

>>4150911
if you want to base your ecosystem on lenses then it has to be Nikon, not only the best lenses by the F Mount literally ran from like 50's to now, i have 4 or 5 different Nikons and share lenses among them all, its incredible, Canon kept changing lense mounts to capitalise and Sony is too new to have the same lineage... the only similar brand in Pentax with the K Mount but they suck and are scarce

>>4150957
Sure, but this question is about specific lenses that are worth buying a camera to get.

What lenses on the F mount are unique and cant be found on other mounts?

File: D3S_9307-front-noct-58mm.jpg (455 KB, 1600x1517)

455 KB JPG

>>4150959
there's likely more than any other ecosystem, do your own fucking research

>>4150918
what film slr numbnuts?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4150911
Sony owns the wide angle prime game
>20mm f1.8
>24mm f1.4
>35mm f2.8
>40mm f2.5
They’re kind of hard to beat both in performance and value. All of these besides the 24 are underpriced.

File: 7Q0A4885.jpg (1.76 MB, 4480x6720)

1.76 MB JPG

>>4150959
for EF my "must have" lens was the 11-24. Just a great great lens, my favorite of all the glass I own. Not really so much for RF now, with the 15-35 and 14-35 both being excellent lenses, the extra few MM on the wide end to 11mm is significant, but not enough to buy into the system anymore since ef is dead lol. still own the 11-24, and the 15-35. also the 8-15ef. i kind of just love ultrawide shit, back when i was building out my DSLR kit, this made me pick canon over nikon. Graduated to rf since EF lenses work flawlessly on it. I believe the mirrorless systems still have niches like this, so i suppose it depends on what you want.
>picrel 11mm. not meant to be a great photo lol

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.2 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:03:06 18:59:18
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	11.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Fuji 35mm, needs no explanation

>>4150961
>based Ken still uses the D3S for his product shoots after all these years

>>4150911
nikon z 50mm f/1.4
fuji 35mm f/1.4, 27mm f/2.8
sony gm 24mm f/1.4

>>4150987
>1600x1517
and its still overkill really

>>4150970
which 35? they have multiple. Also please explain because I havent heard the explanation before.

>>4151023
>I havent heard the explanation before
because he's making it up, everything Fuji is cope, soft overpriced dogshit, "but muh aesthetics"

>>4150911
Mamiya 80mm F4

>>4151023
Fujifags have this derangement thing going on where totally random mediocre lenses have "magic" if they are feeling like a leica man or are "optically perfect" if they are feeling like a sony man. The latter started hitting with the 40mp bodies as they had never seen their photos slightly sharper before, and it's really sorting the chaff from the dead bugs.

Don't put any stock in it because the lenses are really solidly average if not a bit overpriced.

>>4151041
i'm sure it can't be worse than real sony guys
>its SUPER SHARP
>check actual photos
>looks ok nothing special i can't tell it from literally any first party lens
>check autism charts
>higher than average CA, pretty bad coma
>yes but the autism chart: MTF tranny edition says it's 10lp/mm sharper across the board (can you even see that?)

>>4150912
>Z 26mm f/2.8 being the "first autofocus pancake for mirrorless"

I mean, the Panasonic m43 14mm and 20mm, and the Fuji 27mm and 18mm come to mind and have been around for a long while, with there presumably being at least a few more out there I'm unaware of or forgot. I think Canon might've had one for EF-M at least? And surely Snoy has at least one somewhere?

Though I will say, it is often consistently these pancake lenses that I feel have the most unique appeal in their respective systems.

File: Canon_Rebel_SL1_40mm_hand.jpg (104 KB, 1024x791)

104 KB JPG

Image related is the best street setup if you look juvenile, too. Everyone will just assume it's a toy.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	1024
Image Height	791

Not reading any of that because none of those brands have 3d pop

>>4150912
>This is the first ever pancake lens with autofocus for mirrorless cameras (at least to my knowledge). It can possibly make one of Nikon's smaller cameras pocketable.
first ever full frame*---
yawn what an accomplishment

>>4150962
>35mm f2.8
This one beats canons ultra sharp image stabilized 1.8?

>>4151306
it's less sharp but has more 3d pop.

>>4150962
>40mm f2.5
The Nikkor is 2/3 of a stop faster and under half the price for very adequate optical performance if you can live without an aperture ring.

However the 20mm f1.8 is pretty exceptionnal and borderline system seller.

Unfortunately Sony prices are ridiculous in Europe so a 20-70 is out of the question as I don't feel it's a good value proposition at €1600.

>>4151318
The nikkor 2 is vastly optically inferior for a fractional stop that doesn't matter because of the nearly medium format levels of SNR and dynamic range modern full frames are capable of

That sony lenses is good enough for astrophotography and extreme low light landscapes. That nikon lens is good enough for environmental portraits. There's a difference.

>>4151319
From what I have seen the optical difference between the Sony and the Nikon at 2.8 is small at best, and virtually invisible by f/4 as far as sharpness is concerned. Nevertheless I am glad you enjoy your lens for astrophotography, it really is very nice, and it's not like you have much of a choice for 40mm anyway.

>>4151319
the nikon literally has better edge resolution at 2.8

>>4151326
>check MTF tranny chart
>literally single digit lp/mm change
but coma is worse at f2.8 than it is on the sony wide open, so give and take, and the declickable, gearable aperture ring is a huge plus if you ever want to shoot any video at all.

>>4150996
>nikon z 50mm f/1.4
bro?

>>4151329
I mean sure if you were going to pick a lens for video having a declickable gearable aperture ring matters much more than having some of the most insane longitudinal chromatic aberrations on E mount, unironically it's so severe I would count it as character.
It still is an excellent lens mind you and I would have a lot of fun shooting with it if only because of the tactility, but calling it underpriced and talking shit about the nikon that is faster, sharper, smaller, lighter, flares less and has fewer CA for under half the price is a little rich.

>>4151330
Let's just hope it never happens and they let Sigma release their line of f/1.4 on Z

>>4151334
>bokeh fringing
Bokeh fringing as with all bokeh complaints is a non issue. The object is out of focus, let it be as fucked up as possible, it looks cool.

The rest of the stuff ranges from so minor it's not any different (fractional stops) to personal preference (the flare amount is the same, but the sony has smoother flare and the nikon has colored ghosts). Coma+astigmatism (smeary corners) and basic utility are way more important in real use.

The 40mm f2.5 is a lens that truly does it all, while the 40mm f2 is a monocular eye FOV portrait lens.

>>4151334
nikon has already explicitly said that third party lenses can't directly compete with theirs

if nikon has a 50mm f1.4 sigma has to get pentaxy and make it a 43/52mm f1.3

>>4151337
Which is why I said I hope Nikon does not plan on releasing a 50mm f/1.4.

>>4151338
But why? You don’t think Nikon would make a better 1.4 than Sigma?

>>4151497
poorfag smegma coper probably.

>>4151497
Because it'd directly compete.
Mirrorless is just a trojan horse for consoomers to let the camera manufacturers control what they can use. It's one step closer to cameras as a service, you vill own nothing and you vill be happy. Happily letting the botnet into your house because muh compactness (it's not even true compactness, the lenses are all bigger as if they had a built-in SLR mount adapter).

>>4151499
Well the Smegma isn’t even particularly cheap at $900. Don’t think a Nikon would be a lot more expensive.

>>4151500
> Mirrorless is just a trojan horse for consoomers to let the camera manufacturers control what they can use.
Well at least the E mount is fully open.

>>4151511
Yeah but it has a baby mount made for APS-C

File: e86e08d0da6245609de12d320(...).jpg (45 KB, 560x360)

45 KB JPG

>>4151512
>you bring a girl home and take it all off an she sees your puny throat diameter
how to cope in this situation?

>>4151330
>>nikon z 50mm f/1.4
>bro?
sorry, meant z 50mm f/1.8

>>4151514
What impact does the throat diamater have on image quality, dynamic range etc? Do lenses that are available for both E mount as well as either Z or RF mount take better pictures on the latter?

>>4151577
Nothing important unless you want to adapt someone elses lenses to bootstrap the popularity of your bodies or release a crop medium format camera that can use the same mount. On the lens design front, sony can't go over f0.63 but nikon can do f0.58.

>>4151577
Lenses available unaltered for e and rf/z (does such a thing even exist?) would be designed around the constraints of the smallest one I imagine. Supposedly the larger diameter was going to allow lens design to gives us like, faster glass at smaller sizes or something like that, photo sites and blogs were all chirping about throat size back when rf/z were first being shown off. Supposedly a lens like the RF 28-70/2 would not have been possible on EF, etc. is it true? I have no idea, and who knows if I’m the end it’s actually affected lens design much. They sure don’t seem all that smaller or lighter than EF/f mount stuff

File: 1678254813850.png (294 KB, 836x564)

294 KB PNG

>>4151577
nikons lens designers have yet to make superior lenses at tiny sizes vs. sony. actually they're making worse performing lenses that are larger. and canon is even worse!

bigger mounts allow for slightly faster apertures but nothing else, they're all short mounts without a mirror box so telecentric lenses and symmetrical wide angles are possible (except for sony because lol thicc filter stack). more interesting is thin filter stacks and curved microfilter arrays that help symmetrical wide angles perform well.

>>4151612
Allegedly, Nikon engineers said fast wide angles and the 14-24 f/2.8 S in particular were easier to design with the very large throat diameter because they could stick unreasonably large elements at the back. Keeping front and back group sizes roughly symmetrical in size reduces the severity of optical aberrations you have to correct.
I have no doubt the engineering was easier than on F mount, but Is there a significant difference in ease of design for these lenses on Z mount vs. E mount? That much is unclear to me.
At the end of the day what matters to us in practice is what lenses are actually made and it does not seem to me that Sony has had notable issues designing fast UWA lenses, quite the opposite.

>>4151620
It's not the diameter, it's the distance that makes wides more symmetrical. The diameter might help UWA corner performance a little by having a "flatter projection"? Nikon does boast thin filters on top of it all.

>>4151621
So shorter lenses with fewer optical elements = less distortion?

>>4150957
>Canon kept changing lense mounts to capitalise
RF has full compatibility to 1987, only excluding EF-M

>>4150961
>No screw drive AF capable F-Z adapter
>F mount can just as easily be mounted to the RF mount
Get Fucked, Nikonigger.

File: 1678259242161.png (200 KB, 684x929)

200 KB PNG

>>4151662
No, more distortion, you need elements to correct distortion. The short mount gives you room to add those elements. But the lens isn't where it stops, there are also optical elements on the digital sensor. On a smaller mount, the image is projected more like a point to a fan. The sensor has a lot of flat glass in front of it and each pixel has its own lens. This all affects edge quality, most noticeably on wide angle lenses. Telephotos project a bit straighter.

Sony cameras have the most glass in front of their sensor and wide angle lenses that project the image from a small element across the whole sensor, across such a short distance, suffer extreme, uncorrectable distortion. The only correction that can be made is sensor-side. There's also some extra vignetting around the edges since the light coming in more obliquely doesn't entirely reach the pixels with standard spherical microlenses.

On a large mount, the rear element (hell, all the elements) on a native lens can also be larger, so the "fan" is less severe. Then thinner filters reduce that edge distortion further. Leica takes it a step further by changing the curvature of the pixel-specific lenses to minimize vignetting and distortions even more.

>>4150959
>What lenses on the F mount are unique and cant be found on other mounts?
The only ones I can think of, off the top of my head, are the 105mm and 135mm DC lenses and the 1200-1700mm.
All of which can be adapted to any mirrorless mount.

>>4151514
Remain unashamed that I don't have an awkwardly oversized, ugly, anti-consumer boomer system mount.

>>4151518
LMAO nobody is buying into a system for a nifty fifty unless they have brain damage

>>4151720
>LMAO nobody is buying into a system for a nifty fifty unless they have brain damage

50mm is a lot of people's most used focal length. 50mm f1.8 S is widely considered one of the best 50mm lenses under $2000 by many. I'd absolutely buy into Nikon Z just for that lens alone.

>>4151723
Because you're a dumb gearfag, not a photographer

File: 1678265607661.png (212 KB, 756x515)

212 KB PNG

>>4151723
>spend $2000 on a camera
>spend $650 on a lens
>attach a small planet to the front of your camera
>this is a 50mm btw, not an 85mm
this right here is why 40mm and 35mm are getting more popular

File: 1671199018891248.png (206 KB, 735x579)

206 KB PNG

>>4151730
hit the gym, fatass

>>4151728
>i’m a photographer
>trust me

and yet… no photo

>>4151733
t. nophoto

>>4151732
Holy fuck, why is that Nikon 50mm so large? Flange distance much, eh? Nikon using ancient lens designs neatly packaged into some new looking housings.. or what is going on?

File: 1656532059450355.png (495 KB, 755x960)

495 KB PNG

>>4151754
>30%+ cheaper
>better optical performance
>only 10% larger
cope

>>4151754
its a ground up designed launch lense for the z mount. it's optically incredible. not a cheapie nifty fifty.

File: Canon-RF-50mm-F1.8-STM-Le(...).jpg (66 KB, 650x448)

66 KB JPG

>>4151732
my 50mm is just as good and half the size lmao, shouldn't have let them go wild at the buffet

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 22.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	650
Image Height	448

>>4152125
Based. Canons nifty is the most underrated lens.

>>4151732
Notice you’re comparing it to a 55mm, not one of the many 50mms for E mount.

>>4151732
being seen swinging this around in public would be embarrassing. carrying it while traveling would get old fast.

even a literal (not equivalent) 50 on fuji is 1/3 the size

File: 1678339128951.png (366 KB, 1256x669)

366 KB PNG

>>4151761
Wow I sure am glad my lens shaped tumor of a portrait lens is landscape wank grade sharp wide open, where I'd never shoot a landscape.

>>4152132
>mirrorless is so small and light

File: 1658622922269464.png (519 KB, 752x920)

519 KB PNG

>>4152125
>just as good
seethe
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1216&Camera=1212&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1528&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

>>4152140
You won't notice any difference on real photographs, unless you zoom in to 300℅. Although if you stop both down to f4, even zooming in won't make a difference.

>>4152140
I can't even count the number of times I took pictures of black and white lines at f1.8.

Get real.

My dream kit would be:
>Fujifilm Full Frame rangefinder style body that can adapt any lenses
>Canon 16mm f2.8
>Nikon 26mm f2.8
>Sony 35mm f/2.8
Of course it can never exist.

>>4152144
Canon R8 + 16mm f2.8 + rf 24mm f1.8 + rf 35mm f1.8.

Close enough.

>>4152140
>resorts to tranny mta charts instead of photos
Opinion discarded, this is a true tell of a nophoto retardfaggot.

>>4150970
Not the 35mm but I would say the 27mm pancake, for sure. It's still the sharpest lens under $1000 I've used on any camera system. Throw the 16-55mm in there, too, even though it defeats the purpose of a small mirrorless camera.

After 10 years there's still a lot of salt about Fuji on here. Must be doing something right.

>>4152267
they undersell lolympus and have the most delusional and obnoxious users bar snoy

What’s with fuji and people thinking random shit lenses are sharper than nikkor? Pentax levels of delusion.

File: 800px-Canon_EF-M_f2.0_22mm.jpg (88 KB, 800x751)

88 KB JPG

>no mention of the Canon 22/2
Dare I say its probably the best APS-C lens ever that had it all.
>F/2
>Sharp
>Compact
>Cheap
Honorary mention to the Samsung 30/2 that came before it (which also made that system). Ironic both mounts are now dead.

>>4152267
It was good but its not like its hard to make a sharp f/2.8 lens. My biggest issue with the 27/2.8 was that noisy chattering AF motor. Then they released the updated WR and it had the same fucking motor lmao

Owning an L-Mount camera is the biggest pain in the ass cause cheap lenses hardly exists for this system

>>4152305
>leica shit
what did you expect

>>4152305
Don’t you have access to basically all of the Smigma lenses though? I thought the point of them being in L is that they’d bring their whole lineup. What would you be lacking, they pretty much have all the usual lenses.

>>4152306
making good money with my panasonic s5
>>4152311
i'm not sure. i should look up if sigma still does in house lens conversions. i remember they used to do EF to E mount conversions for a while

>>4151497
Because the Nikon would be $600-$1000 more than the Sigma for similar performance

>>4152392
Similar performance in some easily digestible chartfag metrics, but if you looked at the images yourself the rendering (shadow contrast, color cast, flare appearance, diffusion characteristics, etc) would be leagues ahead of the sigma. Even a much cheaper nikon lens would be leagues ahead of the "sharp" sigma, while the sharpness of the sigma would be totally imperceptible except at 200% crop, side by side with a "soft" lens for reference.

>>4150911
Nikon DSLRs are unbeatable due to AF-D lenses
> 50mm f/1.8D for $50
> 80-210 f/4 for $100
> 105 f/2.8 macro for $150
> 35-70 f/2.8 for $150
> 300mm f/4 for $300

The 35-70 2.8 alone sells a D700 or D810 for a good working camera on a budget

>>4152395
The 35mm 1.4 from Sigma was a really good lens with nice rendering. I believe their even older EX lenses had these characteristics as well. But not sure about their newer models. I have the 40mm f1.4 and I’m considering returning it, because I am not wowed by the images it produces. And being a 1.5kg lens with adapter attached, it better be amazing.

>>4152395
Do you think Nikon has the best rendering and micro contrast generally or us Sony and Canon equal with them?

>>4152657
It's more like most lens companies generally put out good looking shit, while the third parties have significantly worse QC, dodgy autofocus, dodgy OIS, and often optical weirdness (that a retard might call bad micro-contrast despite being called something else entirely ie: low T stop, high total internal reflection, poor contrast in the lower frequencies or with certain color combinations, decentering, bla bla bla).

a lot of it comes down to quality control, and the coatings. it is very hard to make consistent coatings, and very hard to formulate good ones.

>>4152663
>low T stop
*high T stop

>>4151696
>Remain unashamed that I don't have an awkwardly oversized, ugly, anti-consumer boomer system mount.
lol. my Z is great. i'm gonna continue to boomer post just to piss this anon off.

>>4150912
>This is the first ever pancake lens with autofocus for mirrorless cameras (at least to my knowledge). It can possibly make one of Nikon's smaller cameras pocketable.

Wut?

>>4152749
yes

Its such a shame the Z mount got a pancake first because the bodies are absolutely huge compared to E mount. But with sony's narrow mount and thick ass filter, I don't think a super compact symmetrical wide angle lens is possible without ugly corners and strong vignetting.

>>4153079
All Nikon has to do is make an a7c competitor. It's not hard to do because the a7c is shit anyway.

>>4153096
The A7C is breddy gud. Only brand fanboys disagree. And sony.

Either the profit margins were too slim or they saw it cannibalizing A6600, A7IV and A7R sales.

>>4153079
>the bodies are absolutely huge compared to E mount
Are they really? I can hardly tell the size difference between a Z6 and A7R4 IRL, the only way I notice is handling them because the Nikon is more comfortable to me.

>>4153103
Basically, it's a worse A7III, only to improve the size. So it still has a lot of potential, but for many it deteriorates the essentials of a complex camera: the options for input and control.

>>4150911
It used to be Canon/Nikon only battle.

As of recently however, if you actually care about how your images look, your only options to get good lenses on your camera are Nikon and Sony.

File: LNSLST.jpg (3.75 MB, 6976x5352)

3.75 MB JPG

>>4150911
I shot with and compared more than 630 lenses over the past 6 years. I have a list with a sample shot gallery for all the lenses I tested under the same conditions. I spent thousands on renting lenses. I rented anywhere from 2 to 5 lenses per week.

Call me a gearfag if you want but just know that I'm not one and the only reason I decided to do this is to figure out, now and for the last time, which Full Frame sensor camera system I'm going to stick with to go with my IQ3. I'm still testing new lenses but I'm about to stop soon, because I've pretty much made my decision last year. (Sony)

I have just started making a list of the best lenses out of all the lenses I tested so far (630+) and pic related is the list so far... The list is not complete, it's almost done but I still have to add a few more manufacturers/lenses to the list {there's only 18 at the moment, still need to add (I think 5 more?)} and then I'll make the full list and post it online.

If you want to have access to the highest number of some of the best lenses ever made, then Sonys E mount is the one and only answer, by far.

If you can't stand Sony for whatever gearfag reason, then your only other option is to go for a DSLR camera from Nikon or Canon aka. to go for either Nikons F mount camera or Canons EF mount camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4153200
smells like larp

>>4153194
Uhm Nikon? I'm confused as to why apparently also Nikon seems to be in need of your life support on /p/.

>>4153202
Definitely not a larper, I actually spent so much money on trying to rent all the lenses that I won't even begin to calculate the total.

(Especially the cinema ones and even more so for cinema lenses like Prime, Super Prime, Primo, Primo Artiste and all the Cooke lenses that they won't even let you rent as a random individual. I had to have my friend in the shop make a deal with his friends in the agency, for me to pay them a ''decent'' amount of money, personally/illegally, just to test the lenses for an hour and within their warehouse hall/property AND under their supervision. To test all these lenses it cost me severe anxiety and more money than I paid for my entire Full Frame sensor setup with all the GM lenses combined, all in a span of less than 1 year, because I tested those lenses with the help of my friend and his connections so it all had to be done in one go, one after another.)

>>4153203
Not about Nikon or any specific brand for that matter. I'm not biased at all and I didn't pixel peep or rate bokeh when I made the list. I used the exact same sensors/bodies from Sony, Canon, Nikon, Fuji, PhaseOne, Hasselblad for all the lenses I tested. Same bodies, same sensors. Lenses were the one and only deciding factor in image quality difference.

The list wasn't made by brand, it's the opposite in fact. It's was all random. All the lenses you see on the list were chosen randomly, by me choosing which lenses made the best images. No bias towards XYZ company whatsoever. I wasn't even looking at the lenses or brands when looking at images, so if there are more lenses from XYZ brand, that just means that XYZ brand obviously makes lenses that make better images than other brands. Just because there are more SK, Panavision, Zeiss, Nikon and Hasselblad than other brands, doesn't mean I'm biased towards these 5 specific manufacturers more than others, it just means that these specific lenses from these specific manufacturers proved to be the best of the best

>>4153209
Oh you're the Zeiss fanboy who talks about the energy spectrums of photons, I should have guessed kek.
You didn't even test Panavision, what's the fucking point? You know cinema rental houses do testing sessions for cinematographers right? It didn't have to cost you a dime if you were later going to rent them. I have a vague notion of you being a German guy whose brother works in CNC, maybe that's why Panavision wasn't an option like it would be in America. They have some rather unique lenses but maybe you were looking for something more clinical judging by your Sony pick.

>>4153209
On Full Frame cameras, Canon is actually my favorite manufacturer, followed by Nikon, even though I chose Sony in the end, simply because of the better lens selection but if someone asks me about it, if someone asks this same exact question, I won't be a biased asshole and recommend them Canon (or Nikon,) I will be truthful and unbiased and I will recommend them Sony, even though I like Canon the most. Because at the end of the day, image quality is what matters the most in photography, not bokeh, not f0.9 aperture, not sharpness, not how many buttons there are on the lens, not the price of the lens, not pixel peeping for aberrations... It's about what kind of images the camera/lens produces and it's only about that at the end of the day.

You can gearfag and pixel peep all you want but none of that matters for your images at the end of the day and I realized that very, very early into my lens testing journey.

Speaking of lenses, it's the same with lenses. Even though I like using Zeiss lenses the most for various hipster reasons, I will not recommend a Zeiss lens over a Cooke, Hassy, SK, Panavision, Angenieux or whatever other lenses that are better, because if Zeiss Lenses are not as good as Cooke, Hassy, SK or other lenses, then they are not as good, period. That's just how it is and I'm not gonna be a biased asshole recommending a lens that makes worse images just because of idiotic brand bias. Especially when doing lens tests and comparing lenses to make a list of the best lenses. It's in my best interest to be as accurate and as honest as I can.

>>4153214
Oh yes I am a Zeiss fanboy, nice guess but I'm obviously not the person you're talking about because this is probably my 10th-15th time ever posting here.

And yes, I did test Panavision lenses but only from Primo70 line, Super Pana line, Artiste line and H line, to be specific and I didn't test all of them, I tested 14 lenses in total and SuperPana, Artiste and Primo was in London and they had an entire set prepared for something with 2 cameras on the set I could use. The H line I tested in Paris, also on a set and also with 2 cameras being there. Both times we used the stills capture option on the cameras, which is like what? 10MP? Lower? And the image quality was A M A Z I N G! Especially on those monitors they had, much, much better color accuracy than the Asus ProArt monitors that I use.

And just for brag purposes, to tease you since you probably wont believe this either, but for just $450, I also tested Atlas Orion Silver lenses and let's just say that at just $90,000 for the entire set, (which is not that a lot for Cine lenses, some of my PO lenses cost more per lens than Atlas cine lenses do) they beat Canons $50,000 per lens super zooms and $25,000 per lens zooms. I will have them on the list just below Fuji lenses and above Panasonic lenses.

>>4153219
>>4153215
>>4153209
And despite all that, still a retarded nophoto. Quintessential /p/, ladies and gentlemen.

>>4153209
and yet you're still just a nophoto

>>4153143
Technically it's better, it's got proper weather sealing, gyro data for video and the improved AF algorithm over the iii (and different jpg processing if you care about that) but yeah
Only one control wheel sucks but I just use lenses with aperture rings with it and it's pretty comfy

File: sh38 - no.png (212 KB, 454x684)

212 KB PNG

>>4153224
>>4153232
My apologies. I sincerely apologize, I didn't realize I had to post my entire savings account details, social security and credit card numbers along with the entire career worth of portfolio shots in order to give people advice and try to help. You're right, I am wrong. I should have just insulted everyone and selfishly keep 6 years and 600+ lenses worth of information I got from testing lenses to myself. You're right. Once again, I apologize.

I tested and compared more lenses on more bodies than any YouTuber or anyone on the internet, without bias, without pixel peeping and I did it ALL FOR MYSELF, not for you, not for others, not for views, not for money, FOR MYSELF and I chose to make a somewhat visually pleasing list to share what I learned and I did so, I did my part, I helped, it's on you to use the information you got or leave it. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. It's your choice.

Oh and since you called me a nophoto, the reason I can afford everything I have is because I do high end fashion work and I also do all the styling work myself. I actually started with photography in early teens, thanks to my friends father who was a pretty big name in Italy. Had a camera in my hand for more than half of my life. Here's one of my recent images that we ended up not using. I realize that proving myself to nobodies on the internet is pointless and a waste of time but I really hope this satisfies you, whoever you are.

Feel free to open up my lens list any time you want. That's why I decided to make the list public and create an image style list in the first place, to share what I learned with other people and photographers. Again, take it or leave it. It's up to you. Just know that if you pick up any one of the lenses on that list, you won't regret it, ever. 630+ lenses tested and I cherry picked the best of the best.

This would be enough 4chan for me for this week. Maybe you get to trash another one of my posts next week! :D

>>4153278
>i did it all for myself
>so let me write essays on a turkmenistani basket weaving booklet to tell YOU all about it
kek. btw coulda shot that on my phone, you wasted your time.

>>4153286
Your pettiness is showing.

>>4153286
>coulda shot that on my phone, you wasted your time.

his photo could be stolen for all i know so i’m not defending him. but there is no way in hell a phone is producing an image like that. This is sad levels of bait.

>>4153278
>I didn't realize I had to post my entire savings account details, social security and credit card numbers
I mean, if you took so many samples, a few comparisons to highlight what you've devoted paragraphs and paragraphs too makes sense.
>and I did it ALL FOR MYSELF
Sure doesn't sound like it, still seems like schizo larp to me.

>>4153194
Sony lenses are flat out amazing

Using a sony A7R series camera with the 40mm f2.5 G feels like carrying around a miniature GFX100s. And in a way, it is. Getting the reds right in post is kind of a PITA however.

>>4153299
it really is impressive how "i did this all for me, i don't care what you all think" and "listen to me and i'm going to kvetch whenever anyone responds" are just completely compatible positions to hold in this tranny's mind.

>>4153301
modern western society's philosophy often can't separate the self from the outward image (you are what other people think of you, your life is not your own) so if you do stuff for yourself you are by definition caring what other people think. it's why they're forever heading towards communism.

only autists and asians perceive it differently

File: cloud.jpg (58 KB, 1383x920)

58 KB JPG

>>4153200
>>4153209
>>4153215
>>4153219
>>4153278
dont take these morons seriously. they are the actual nophoto pieces of shit. they are just jealous and poor, both mentally and financially. thats a pretty accurate arsenal of god tier lenses, i would add a couple more to the list though

>>4153224
>>4153232
stop samefagging in every thread you fucking spineless brainless creature

>>4153286
>another phonefag
if you can get that kind of a shot with a phone ill paypal you 10,000 eur right now

>>4153299
ahhh there he is... in yet another thread calling yet another person a schizo. the all time famous brain damaged sigma cocksucker
what would /p/ do without you

>>4153300
yup that 40mil is top notch. so are most of their other cheap lenses too. sony is the new nikon when it comes to lenses. and their GM, ZA and E mount exclusive zeiss glass is god tier.

>>4153301
i mean it makes sense youre just jealous and brain damaged. dude spent literal years shooting hundreds of lenses, probably dozens of bodies and spent god knows how much on renting and now he wants to share his experience. literal psychology 101. simple as that. i know when i do something im proud of i want to share it with everyone too. especially if what i did can also help others. just because youre a talentless greedy nophoto bastard doesnt mean everyone else is too.

>>4153303
>by definition caring what other people think
read the above reply so i dont have to copy paste the same shit to you too.

bonus calming picture of a cloud

>>4153301
just because youre this dumb, ill take his gear list image and ill start posting it in every gearfag thread

>>4153348
so is that an example image from those magical lenses or just more shitposting?

>>4153363
its shot on magical a1 with a magical 135mm GM :)
i can post some x2d images with 30, 65, 90 or 135mm lenses if youre still not coping hard enough?

>>4153200
Best in what way? Rendering, colors, micro contrast or sharpness?

>>4153209
I believe you, anon. But please expand on what made these lenses stick out. And which were some of the worst lenses? Also, why no zooms listed?

>>4153379
i mean it is a photo board
whole point is to post photos
anything else is larping

>>4153278
I love you bro, thanks for compiling this list. What are your thoughts on the 40mm Sigma Art f1.4? I have this lens but not sure how to feel about it yet. Also, what kind of subjects did you photograph in your tests? Only people?

File: 267918_son20wstep2.jpg (195 KB, 1200x1014)

195 KB JPG

There is literally no reason this lens (and the 35mm f1.4 GM) shouldn't be on the gearfag list

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 60D
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.1
Serial Number	0580455462
Lens Name	EF85mm f/1.8 USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2022:04:29 11:19:00
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/9.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1014
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	2 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Custom
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	132

File: 1655745113155158.png (70 KB, 707x725)

70 KB PNG

>>4153402
20mm is fine since there's no competition, but the 35 1.8 is better for approximately half the weight and price

>>4153413
That cheaper 35mm has crazy chromatic aberrations in every single way all the way down to f/11.

>>4153394
>anons tell me how to feel about this lens I’m too retarded to form my own opinion and I don’t actually take pictures
Bro really

>>4153421
>spend several hundred before asking questions
Lol.

>>4153425
Truly belongs here, that guy..

>>4153413
He only tested portrait lenses (primes between 50-135mm).

>>4153421
I have my own opinion. I’m just curious what he thinks of it. After all it scores the highest of any lens ever made on MTF charts, so I want to see if he thinks similar to how I think about lenses (if he does, then I could probably trust that I would enjoy his other recommendations too).

>>4153430
Thank you, I appreciate that.

>>4153103
Nope, and im a Sony shooter kek. A7c is a disappointment. Just an a7III with crippled EVF and controls. Im sure theyll bring a proper rangefinder style body in the Mark II and it will actually be smaller and not have a7III evf chopped off. Sadly itll probably cost $5k too because Sony are jews.

>>4153584
At the very least the a7c gets real time tracking while the a7iii gets no updates

Sony makes the best glass?

>>4154081
According to lensrentals, they had shit lenses and upped their game tremendously in the recent x years. Whether it's best, don't know, I get that it's among the best.

>>4154086
Link

I know the consumer zooms are pretty bad and so is most of A mount

>>4154086
Best part is it's not because they upped their game and did all the innovation on their own, it's because they scammed Zeiss and stole their manufacturing and engineering secrets during the Sony-Zeiss partnership contract which lasted, correct me if im wrong, from 2006-2019.

The sole reason why GM lineup of lenses was even invented is thanks to Zeiss, not thanks to Sony figuring out how to make better lenses. they straight up stole Zeiss's lens design and engineering. (and its not just the GM lenses, they used the Zeiss design even in some of their cheap glass (e.g their ZA lenses, the 50mm 1.8 from 2017 or 2016 or the 90mm macro, or the ''new'' 40mm f2.5 and even the old 85mm 1.8.) If you look at the lens design of all these lenses and of the GM lenses, they all use the Zeiss Sonnar, Distagon and Planar designs, like its a straight up copy paste of Zeiss planar sonnar and distagon designs, the only difference is new technology, different type of glass used and sonys own coatings which by the way, they stole the coatings formula too, sonys coatings are almost identical to zeiss coatings kek. and then after they did that, after their partnership contract with zeiss expired, literally not even a month went by before they did a colab with tamron on some lens lmfao

sony does have good glass but its not thanks to sony, its thanks to zeiss, sony are literal jews.

File: 107868_1.jpg (163 KB, 670x447)

163 KB JPG

>>4150961
>what film slr

>>4151677
Even better, it can be mounted to EF mount

>>4154257
Wow, that sounds pretty great. Zeiss is known for making amazing optics (I use a Zeiss scope on my deer rifle) and if Sony stole their tech, then thats reason enough to buy Sony.

>>4154099
You have to rely on /p/ for a link as I don't find it nor recall great information about keywords for search. They were in a critical mood against Sony for cracking mounts, breaking sensor sockets, error prone and ignorant engineering (also for heat builup, water ingress) and often didn't let even out a good word about Sony. This changed with some tele lens where Sony engineers where in contact with lensrentals for measurements of a pre production sample, even improved already impressive results with another revision. I don't recall which lens it was, but this was only for optical performance. Meanwhile for most pro lenses they pay Sony respect to come up with rugged designs that stand close to Canons experienced engineering, where often Sony is ahead for the drive speed on their autofocus motors.

>>4150962
Samyang 35 1.8 shits on the 35 2.8
Samyang 24 1.8 shits on the 20 tho is not as wide

Frankly while they are decent lenses they are quite expensive compared to offerings from other companies.

Id say the Tamron 35 150 2-2.8f is quite a system seller for Sony.
I also like the rendition of the zeiss 50 1.4 tho is an older lens.

>>4154339
>Samyang 35 1.8 shits on the 35 2.8
The scamyang shits itself against any sort of light and when close focusing. The sony/zeiss is very, very slightly less sharp but also handles flare significantly better including resistance against internal veiling flares that reduce contrast. You might want the sharpness for something, but the samyang also suffers from worse astigmatism so it's of limited utility. Both the lenses are kind of bad and it's better to go for the 35mm GM or the 40 G than either, but if you have to pick one pick the sony because sharpness differences of this degree are hard to see unless cropping in on brick walls.

>Samyang 24 1.8 shits on the 20 tho is not as wide
No, it's not even close. The Sony is literally twice as sharp, handles flare way better despite being wider, and renders stars better throughout most of the frame and only drops to the level of the scamyang at the extreme edges. The samyang shits on the tiny sony 24mm f2.8, but the sony 20 1.8 and 24 1.4 are in their own league.

>>4154257
thanks Zeiss. now I'm considering getting a Sony.

>>4153200
I have a schneider-kreuznach edixa xenar 55 2.8.

File: atna.png (448 KB, 640x681)

448 KB PNG

>>4154339
>Zeiss 50mm f1.4
The Sony 55mm f1.8 ZA is the third best performing 50mm lens ever made second only to 55mm f1.4 Zeiss Otus and NIKKOR Z 58mm f0.95 S Noct lenses.That's across all systems, not just on E mount.

That 55mm also scores in the top 10 on each and every lens test you can find online, including all the DXOMARK testings, out of all the lenses, from all manufacturers and all focal lengths. This is the only lens ever made, that is consistently scored in the TOP5/TOP10 on each and every test ever made and is still to this day, almost a decade after, in the TOP10 on every single lens test result list you can find online.

The Sony 55mm f1.8 ZA was also the second most sold lens on E mount for 5 years in a row.

It's also dirt cheap at only 800 bucks.

If you have an E mount body or are shopping for one and you don't own this lens or plan on buying it, then why even bother?!
It's kind of a similar story with Sony 85mm f1.4 GM, Sony 90mm f2.8 Macro and Zeiss Batis 25mm f2.

Sony literally has the best 20-30mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100-135mm lenses across the entire market. If you have a snoy and you shop for 20-30mm lens; You get either the 25mm Batis or 16-35mm GM. If you shop for a 35, you get either the 35mm f1.4 ZA or the 35mm f1.8. If you shop for a 50mm you get the 55mm f1.8 ZA or if you want wider aperture, you get either the 50mm f1.2 GM or the 50mm f1.4 ZA. If you shop for 85mm, you get the 85mm f1.4 GM or if that's not an option the Yongnuo 85mm f1.8 YN or 90mm f2.8 Macro. If you shop for 100-135mm lenses, you get the 135mm GM.

That's literally how easy it is to be on the E mount. You have access to some of the best performing lenses ever made, from 20mm to 135mm. If you can't get good images on E mount, with all these top10/top20 lenses, then you should look for another field to work in or a different hobby.

>>4154991
>That 55mm also scores in the top 10 on each and every lens test you can find online
Ive read its quite soft. Northrups also ranked it dead last among the 10 most common 50mm's on the E Mount. Claimed it was way overpriced.

>>4154991
>Lists "best performing 50mm lenses"
>None of them are actually even 50mm

NGMI

>>4154979
you mean the 50mm? if so i have one too, adapted on my a7lll and it is my favorite lens besides the 50mm summicron apo asph from Leica. thats one of the best 50mm ever made and also one of the most popular M42 lenses ever. i got mine for 40 bucks.

>>4154994
Soft? Probably a bad copy. They sold and made so much copies of that lens that it's pretty common to run into a bad copy. It's one of the sharpest lenses ever made, it is only beat by Otus 55mm and Nikkor 58mm Noct when it comes to sharpness. Also, in all other tests, only the Nikkor 58mm Noct and 55m otus beat the 55mm ZA. It's also in the TOP15 sharpest lenses across all focal lengths, not just 50mm. It also scores TOP10 in all the DXOMARK testings.

>>4154995
Yes. 50mm. Everything from 50mm to 58mm is called and considered a ''50mm lens.'' It's been like that for almost two centuries now.

>>4154994
>northrups
kek might as well get your info from plebbit while youre at it

>Ive read its quite soft
where did you read that exactly? literally every single big name fashion and portrait photographer that shoots with a snoy has that lens in their kit. like every single one of them. no exceptions. that says something about the lens

>>4154999
Then everything down to 42mm must also be considered a 50mm by that logic, except I've seen 45mm and under get called 40mm for short far more often, so I don't think any of this stuff holds up to scrutiny. You get 5mm of rounding at best!

>>4155009
No? Because 40-45mm are 40mm lenses.
Same as 80-85mm being called 85mm lenses.
Same as 100-110mm being called 100mm lenses.
Same as 20-28mm being called 20mm lenses.

It's that simple. It's been like that since 1800's.
And the lenses are also grouped in that same exact way on all the lens test sites.
Why?! I don't fucking know. It's just how it is. 55mm and 58mm are 50mm lenses and fall under the 50mm lens group.

File: kerek.jpg (24 KB, 222x324)

24 KB JPG

>>4154995
>northrup
BRUH

>>4155017
Ok that 20-28mm example is especially egregious since 20 (which I guess could be considered a subset of 18, and then especially:) 24, and 28 are all distinct common and iconic primes in the way 35, 40, 50, 85, and 135 are, and I don't think anyone is bundling 35 and 40mm for instance. Even if I could concede 50-58 since there not many iconic FLs above 50 until 75-85, the rounding also only holds up as far as you can go without encroaching on another "anchor" focal length's territory, and bundling 20-28 encapsulates like 3 of them.

>>4154081
like 10 out of 20 best non 3rd party lenses on the market today are from sony and on top of that basically sony gm lenses are rebranded zeiss lenses >>4154257 explained it pretty well. also batis and loxia lenses are e mount exclusive are are some of the best lenses you can buy, although not very fast apertures if your dick gets hard looking at bokeh and having f1.2 lenses. also voigtlander makes some of their lenses e mount exclusive when it comes to performance, for example all 3 of the new apo lanthar lenses perform significantly better on E mount than they do on Z mount

>>4155024
I don't know man, it's not me saying that and I have no idea about the 20mm nonsense, I just know that when you say 20mm; everyone and their grandmother thinks of 20, 21, 24, 25 and 28mm lenses. When you say 35mm; everyone and their grandmother thinks of 30 and 35mm lenses. When you say 40mm; everyone and their grandmother thinks of 40 and 45mm lenses. When you say 50mm; everyone and their grandmother thinks of 50, 52, 55 and 58mm lenses... and so on and so forth.

Every single lens testing site, every single lens comparison site, every single YouTube video, every single forum post... Whenever you say ''50mm lenses'' the list you are given will automatically contain 52, 55, 56 and 58mm lenses on top of 50mm. That's just how it is, it's not just me saying that.

>>4155026
Even lens manufacturers like Fuji, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica and so on, have listed their 55/56/58mm lenses as ''50mm focal length lenses'' on their websites and while marketing their lenses.

>>4155028
No "50mm" lens is actually 50mm exactly. Most of them are between 46-54mm.

>>4155096
This should be regulated.

>>4155096
Yes, this too. Most, if not all, lenses are off by couple millimeters from the advertised focal length for glass element design reasons.

>>4155100
You can't regulate lens design restrictions. It's not like they set the focal length to 48.7mm on purpose and then advertise as 50mm. If they were to focus everything around getting the exact 50mm focal length, then the whole lens design and the entire engineering behind it would be completely different - and that also means glass element size and lens frame size or length increase - which then, it would be a completely different lens, that they created randomly without even knowing how it would even turn out to be, not by their own choice.

Trying to regulate lens design would be like trying to regulate math equations. Just because you want to regulate that 2+2=5, doesn't mean that it's physically possible to make 2+2 to actually equate to 5. It will always be 4 no matter how you try to regulate it.

>>4155028
maybe as normal, not 50mm

>>4155440
Which is why the spergs who say they don't use zooms because they want 50mm and not 53 or 47 should be rightfully laughed off. It's such a non-argument, it doesn't evrn make a difference unless you're doing measurements and a camera isn't even the right tool for the job.

>>4155604
Who says that

Zooms have no 3d pop and are unwieldy on any sensor bigger than 1”

>>4155606
>Zooms have no 3d pop
this part is just not true

also stop calling it ''3d pop'' anyone who refers to lens design light reflection, refraction and diffraction as ''3d pop'' is retarded. the ''3d like'' look of images produced by quality engineered lenses is literally just good light control and super precise lens design. its not some micro contrast bullshit or whatever.

precise lens design + reflection, refraction and diffraction control = ''3d pop''
all there is to it

some manufacturers spend extra money on this, some are greedy and make lenses for profit
simple as that

>>4154996
Yes, 50. I like it as well. It seems like there are revisions of it though.. an earlier type with chrome plated brass with XR markings on it. Do you know if it has the same optical formula? Also it seems strange that such an obscure and great lens has fallen under the radar.

Also what about the later style zebra schneider kreuznach lenses? Less aperture blades obviously, but still the same formula?

>>4156239
Sounds like cope from someone whose lenses lack 3d pop, to be quite honest my family

File: 45mmf3.5hasselblad.jpg (561 KB, 1032x1590)

561 KB JPG

>>4156444
sounds like someone who doesnt know shit about how optics work, to be quite honest my family

youre worse than the retards who think so called ''3dpop'' isnt real. actually people like you who use words like ''3dpop'' and ''micro contrast'' or ''dimensionality'' to explain the most basic shit like light reflection/refraction/diffraction control and lens design, are the reason why these retards even exist in the first place.

now look at picrel, shut the fuck up and admire your 3Dpop

File: 50mm1.4summicron.jpg (841 KB, 1384x1589)

841 KB JPG

>>4156563
and heres some leica, i think this thread lacks some based leica imagery

File: 90mm2.8summicron.jpg (329 KB, 1028x1362)

329 KB JPG

>>4156564
oh what's that i hear? not enough leica?
ok, heres 90mm f2 as well

File: 85mm1.4GM.jpg (681 KB, 1521x1364)

681 KB JPG

>>4156565
what about some snoy? yeah i think its time for some snoy too

File: 24-70mmGM.jpg (264 KB, 1034x1373)

264 KB JPG

>>4156566
i forgot the ''zooms have no 3d pop'' bullshit so heres a few from 24-70 GM

>>4156567
i can post more ''3d pop'' zooms and primes if you want later today
just dont expect shitty chinese and japanese 3rd party lenses because i dont fuck with shit lenses, shit lenses make shit images

File: pentaxFA50_f1.4.jpg (313 KB, 1618x1080)

313 KB JPG

Pentax 3D pop

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	PENTAX K-1 Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.14 (Windows)
Photographer	(C) DIRKWITTEN
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2019:02:15 22:59:49
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Macro

>>4156568
the 135mm 1.8 GM almost sold me to snoy. please keep em coming.

>>4156567
Not seeing any 3D pop there, but it's not because it's a zoom lens.
>>4156598
This is just shallow DoF.

>>4156598
it pops bruh. it's poppin

>>4151512
>>4151514

Really important considering that light is projected in parallel straight lines, right?

>>4156634
It should be projected in parallel straight lines for a shity sensor like Sony's with a stack as thick as your mom that makes things worse with the mount sitting so damn close, but if it did you'd get hard vignetting so they just project at extreme angles and cope with the soft vignetting instead.

File: imgp4593r_1024.jpg (280 KB, 1024x683)

280 KB JPG

3D poppu by Super-Takumar 50/1.4

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX Corporation
Camera Model	PENTAX K10D
Camera Software	K10D Ver 1.00
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	32568
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1024
Image Height	683
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:06:10 14:13:21
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	1024
Image Height	683
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4156646
Why is this such a big issue

I have a sony camera and the pictures come out fine with no vignetting. It affects nothing. I guess, it's not possible to make a super compact wide angle lens because it needs more corrective elements to work with the thick filter stack, but oh well, even leica makes large wide angle lenses now.

Are you somehow managing to shoot film inside an A7 body so corrections are totally beyond you without manual dodging and burning

Are the Pentax U (m42) lenses generally good?
It seems to me in the field of vintage lenses some does not get the praise they deserve simply because they are common, cheap and widely available. Is that correct?

captcha DOXXGD

>>4156716
his identity is based on which camera brands he likes so little one-ups like that actually have meaning to him
>BUT IF YOU BOUGHT CANON NATIVE VIGNETTING ON THIS LENS WOULD BE 0.7EV INSTEAD OF 1EV
>CANON WINS
>SONY KEK
>COPE CORRECTIONS COPE COPE COPE! COPE CORRECT YOUR RAWS! COOOPE!
>FINALLY I DID SOMETHING RIGHT WITH MY LIFE BY CONSOOMING PRODUCT
>photos: *same boring cat snapshit regardless of camera used, image quality is perceptibly the same)

File: 24mm f2.8.jpg (87 KB, 650x602)

87 KB JPG

>>4156716
yeah i guess it's a shame, sony can only make a slow 24mm that ends 2cm forward of the grip rather than 1cm behind it like nikon's even slower 26mm.

not like any of these cameras fit in pockets regardless lal

File: WORMS ARE A RAW THING.png (1.2 MB, 721x775)

1.2 MB PNG

>>4156716
Telecentric designs are superior
>>4156719
Just because I shoot Canon it doesn't mean it's the brand I like the most. I do enjoy pointing out how shitty Sony and Fuji are, but that has nothing to do with Canon, it has to do with Sony and Fuji being shit. Call it reverse brandfagging if you want.

>>4156726
Fuji isn't shit in a way that's relevant outside of pixel peeping. They're crop sensor cameras. They will never, ever produce finely detailed images without the worlds sharpest lenses. They do their job - retaining more apparent sharpness than an AA filter while reducing moire the same. The images should be enjoyed as a whole. Because it's crop. Even with bayer instead of xtrans you'll see smeary blurs instead of just worms so you're gaining and losing nothing. Stop pixel peeping APS-C, retard. It's already cropped, don't crop it again.

And sony isn't shit in a way that's relevant outside of arbitrary dick measuring contests. Literally, dick measuring contests. Everyone in the real world thinks the cameras are fine, and competitors didn't even exist until after the R3 and just before the RIV so oh lol they're better compared to the older stuff that made them enter the market segment? Big deal

File: 1679246702007.png (682 KB, 616x724)

682 KB PNG

>>4156726
>screencap from some retards blog
>a tiny crop of shot noise looks bad
>reality

the woooorms! that just look like noise even in this tiny crop! IM GOING INSANE!

File: 1679246803965.png (176 KB, 583x289)

176 KB PNG

>>4156734
WORMS! CANON WORMS! OH NO!

Retards.

>>4156734
>>4156735
mate i think the worms are in your brain.

File: Sigma-fp-L-lead-02.jpg (221 KB, 1180x787)

221 KB JPG

>>4156737
Same lol, he got infected by his camera. Many such cases, sad!
>>4156731
Even without peeping the textures look all fucked up, like poorly developed film stock where the one in charge got careless with temperatures and fractured the emulsion.
>And sony isn't shit in a way that's relevant outside of arbitrary dick measuring contests. Literally, dick measuring contests. Everyone in the real world thinks the cameras are fine, and competitors didn't even exist until after the R3 and just before the RIV so oh lol they're better compared to the older stuff that made them enter the market segment? Big deal
Sony cameras have shitty ergonomics, a shitty mount, shitty weather sealing, shitty filter stacks, PDAF artifacts and more. I won't hate on the stabilization because as shit as it is, my camera has none if I don't put a stabilized lens on it. But yeah Sony cameras suck and I'd rather use a Sigma than a fucking Sony. At least they don't have a baby mount and offer something in return for having to use a tiny TV, lol.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 80D
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/10.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual

File: 2122d-1.jpg (155 KB, 1000x1000)

155 KB JPG

>>4156740
>Sony cameras have shitty ergonomics
Sony cameras are small. This can annoy people who use giant lenses. Thank fuck you can just put a battery grip or a $50 bracket on it
and end up with more FUNCTIONAL size than a canon R blob, instead of forcing those of us who do not use giant lenses to put up with a giant camera.
>A shitty mount
LITERAL dick measuring. Somehow all of them take good photos. Must be autism.
>Shitty weather sealing
Last seen on the third generation, which existed before the rest of the mirrorless cameras. Lol.
>Shitty filter stacks
So you can not adapt vintage symmetrical wide angles intended for rangefinders. That's it, photography is over. Everyone uses 40 year old rare leica lenses.
>PDAF artifacts
Boy, it's only visible if you force it at f/22 shooting directly at a light source and nikon has the same thing. Fuck, I get sensor flares on every DSLR like that. And then Canon has other issues, like a closed mount, and camera ergonomics that acknowledge users of fuckhuge lenses but tell everyone else to fuck off.
>muh heckin TV
Garbled boomer words

In short it doesn't fucking matter and is actually better in some ways ("worse" ergonomics? no, you get a choice between a compact camera and a large one instead of being dragged along by 70-200 f2.8 fanatics.)
Get a life instead of spouting phrases you heard on blogs without understanding what they mean

>>4156750
Add-on ergonomics never fit quite as right as something well made from the get-go. They're copes at best. At that point just get a box camera and build a rig from the start, it's even better suited for it because it's made with that in mind. So you can get a handle with all the controls on it and shit. That's one reason why the fp is superior.

File: 1679248592895.png (297 KB, 909x502)

297 KB PNG

sony has bad ergonomics
someone complained that his pinky hurt after using a 2.5lb lens for 8 hours straight
that means sony cameras are bad for not being huge, not that he's an idiot for not buying a cheap grip extension or perhaps a battery grip for his niche use case
sony pls make your camera as big and heavy as a medium format mirrorless to please people who want to use giant lenses but don't want to buy brackets or battery grips

File: maxresdefault.jpg (150 KB, 1280x720)

150 KB JPG

>>4156753
>Add-on ergonomics never fit quite as right as something well made from the get-go.
It really sounds like you're a bitch. Maybe you meant "look quite as right" or "i've never used one but it looks like IF".

Someone elses pinky hurt from using a 2.5lb lens for 8 hours straight?

That's it. Now the non-wedding photographers who don't own lenses heavier than even 1lb need a bigger camera. That means a bigger camera under the L bracket or battery grip they already use, of course, but without the functionality of the L bracket or battery grip they already use. To get that back, the camera needs to be even bigger. 200-600 users rejoice.

20, 40, 50, and 85mm users get fucked, buy a fuji fgts

>>4156754
An interchangeable lens camera that has shitty ergonomics becomes a point and shoot in practical terms, if you want to shoot just tiny primes why not get a RX1 instead?

>>4156758
My heaviest lens is barely 2lb with hood.

File: Bildschirmfoto-2019-08-14(...).png (438 KB, 700x392)

438 KB PNG

>>4156759
>The point of full frame is using 2.5lb fast zooms to shoot weddings by candlelight
The point is superior sensor performance for getting higher quality prints. A lot of serious photographers use small and medium sized lenses because they aren't available light, available framing event snapshitters.

If you are shooting for that long and don't mind bulk, sony designed the camera and battery grip together to have good ergonomics for this purpose as well as additional controls for portrait orientation shooting.

This makes the camera even larger than some canon shit but the weight is functional and needing a bigger camera is pretty niche.

>>4156762
And you've never shot an 8 hour wedding by candlelight so your sony ergonomics kvetching are just you repeating the opinions of some whiny blogger rather than your own.

File: 51G94ztfgmL.jpg (53 KB, 1000x1000)

53 KB JPG

>>4156764
How does a portrait battery grip improve the handling of a camera with a shallow grip in any way imaginable? Even xtranny cameras have attachments that get the point better than that Sony thing.
They're still shit, but a step towards ergonomics. The much smaller D5200 has better ergonomics than basically any A7 variant in existence.

>>4156769
>t-the grip isn't big enough for me, IF BUT IN THEORY (does not own the camera, or a camera, period)
>make it less portable for everyone pls.
You sound like a bitch. It sounds like you really want to buy a sony, but it's not fitting the scenarios that exist inside of your nophoto head, so you demand that sony change the default configuration of the camera to fit your imaginary "IF" needs.

Here I am with a sony and a smallrig L bracket on it for tripod work thinking you're fucking stupid if you want me to stuff a canon R6 into a backpack (with a smallrig L bracket on it for tirpod work) like I want every camera brand on earth to cater to 8 hour event snapshitters ergonomics bitching

File: ergo-handle-500x500.jpg (43 KB, 500x500)

43 KB JPG

A Panasonic DC-BS1H and a Tilta handle and cage are unironically better ergonomically than anything you could come up with using a Sony. Because the Sony isn't designed with modularity in mind, it's meant to be a standalone camera but it's designed like shit.

>>4156777
It is becoming more and more apparent you have never used a camera. You think about using cameras but you've never actually done it.

>>4156777
>it isn't designed with modularity in...
it's designed to be a compact and easy to handle camera for normal shooting. this is the majority's preference. for serious editorial/fashion and casual hobby shoots alike the norm is a small to medium sized lens and the camera isn't held up continuously for more than an hour.

for extended shoots they even put a pinky cutout on the battery grip
>>4156758
so the wedding and pro sports faggots who literally do not stop snapping for hours on end can be comfy

its a pretty purposeful design, actually. and if you actually used one, your theoretical complaints would vanish. the camera would only be somewhat awkward if you tried to use a 70-200 one handed. no one does that.

File: lollmao.png (205 KB, 704x393)

205 KB PNG

>>4156786
Maybe you have woman hands, would explain a lot.

File: 1679250933012.png (265 KB, 811x640)

265 KB PNG

>>4156793
>le original A7!
Ah yes, no one fucking uses that anymore.

I have pretty meaty palms and strong fingers. So I don't get shaky hands from holding up a sony with a medium sized lens one handed. If I was using a larger zoom than this, I'd two hand it like everyone else. And have a battery grip for MOMMY MUH PINKY HURTY ;_; whining. Sometimes I use the smallrig L bracket if my camera is going on and off a tripod rather than a battery grip, and it's fine, really. No complaints either way.

Maybe your womanly lack of palm muscle explains your complaints. Maybe it's just a total lack of grip strength. Maybe you're gxace. Maybe I would notice this issue if I lost 20lbs of muscle and replaced it with some belly fat. Maybe I would care if I had a career of using 70-200 and larger lenses for hours on end almost daily, rather than odd TFP and landscape fuckery, and then I wouldn't give a shit about my 35mm camera being the size of a 6x4.5.

Or maybe you're just a whiny brand fanboy grasping at straws.

>DSLR fanboy has long spindly lady fingers and delicate hands with soft, bony palms so he needs an extra deep grip to wrap his long girl fingers around without his fingernails bumping up against the camera body
>sony chads have muscly linebacker mitts
kek

File: 513612654.0.jpg (74 KB, 1200x800)

74 KB JPG

>>4156808
>coping this hard
lmao someone has small hands, and you know what they say about that

File: hands-men-women-hand-woma(...).jpg (65 KB, 1300x1039)

65 KB JPG

>>4156825
>I have soft, bony palms and long spindly fingers and long fingernails so i need an extra deep grip to compensate for my lack of palm meat and provide ample room for my manicure
ok sis
the rest of us, you know, have some grip strength, and let the palm do most of the work.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi

File: Using-the-Konica-Minolta-(...).jpg (56 KB, 960x720)

56 KB JPG

Back when men were men cameras didn't even have these sissy "grips" and i'm getting sick of retarded autistic engineers that can't figure out a better way to get the battery in without making the body shaped like a bopit

>i-i need a grip t-t-t-t-to
Holy shit hit the gym.

>>4156837
>i'm getting sick of retarded autistic engineers that can't figure out a better way
It's just that a pistol grip is THE BEST way.
>>4156834
Enjoy your arthritis.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (126 KB, 1280x720)

126 KB JPG

>>4156851
holy shit hit the gym
>aaaaaaaah it's so big my hands are going to split in half without an extra deep ergonomic grip
do you have arthritis already lmao

>>4156855
>holy shit hit the gym
Says the guy crying about the weight of DSLRs.
>do you have arthritis already lmao
No but maybe I would by now if I shot with a brick sized like a children's toy.
>guy in the pic has hands so small they make the Sony look big
maxresdefault more like maxkekdefault

>>4156863
>Says the guy crying about the weight of DSLRs.
was i
are you confused
and that guy was saying it was annoying having the weight hitting his ribs not that it was hard to hold, you know, men don't have as much squish sis

>>4156868
The grip changes nothing when it comes to it hitting ribs. You know what changes that? Knowing how to carry.

Is it just me or is every new tripfag and namefag a nophoto?

File: dude art lmao.jpg (352 KB, 1080x720)

352 KB JPG

>>4156881
It's just you.

>>4156883
you've been reposting a picture you call awful for months ffs

>>4156883
>1092 posts in 3 months
How many of these are your photos though? 500? 200? 100? 10? Shitting up the board is expected but we need some balance. Almost every thread is a trash thread.

I remember a time when there were more photo threads than gear threads and we had one communal thread for shitposting in. We still shit on each other in every thread of course, but they were photo threads... with photos in them. People put on trips to dump photos and give and receive crit on each other's work. It's just sad to see /p/ at what is clearly its lowest point.

>>4156887
I only post it to shut the "nophoto" shitposters up.

>>4156889
Probably under than 10. I only post photos to prove a point and I don't like burning my pictures on here. I come here to challenge mindsets, not to post my work.

>>4156891
But you don’t have any work

>>4156891
>I come here to challenge mindsets, not to post my work
Fair enough but just so you know that's the definition of nophoto. Posting a photo doesn't exempt you from being a nophoto. Embrace it rather than deny it I guess.

>>4156898
The definition of nophoto is someone who doesn't take them, let alone make them like I often do.

>>4156899
You don’t even make photos

I’d say I could name 10 better posters but it would be 10/13 of the people on /p/.

>>4156901
Shouldn't you be streaming to children (prospective victims) on twitch?

>>4156899
>invisible photo man

File: pole.jpg (307 KB, 667x1000)

307 KB JPG

>>4156903
Whatever

>>4156905
>>4156883
Talk about a discount elliot erwitt. For someone who spends all their time hating sony, fuji, and street photography…

>>4156906
reflex luddites are the new leica larpers yknow?

>>4156906
Are you the street pasta poster? I enjoy reading that every time I see it, great work with the photo book tiers too. I love that there's someone as dedicated to hating on Erwitt as I am on other streetshitters.
>hating sony, fuji
That's a weird way to spell Winogrand, Moriyama. I hate Sony and Fuji to some degree but not to the pathological levels displayed by people like cANON, for me it's more about triggering the userbase.
>and street photography
You got that one right

>>4156910
>luddites
lol the K-3 III has eye detect through the OVF, just one example of how advanced the stuff is. The first full frame with IBIS was the K-1, too. Pentax innovates others copy.

>>4156911
>hates erwitt
>has the exact same photographic style
tsun tsun, cANON, tsun tsun desu yo

>>4156914
Mirrorless did that across the frame as of a decade ago. Inb4 autism I won’t read. Go take another erwitt knockoff why dontcha.

>>4156914
The first full frame with IBIS was the A7R II. The K1 was released over 6 months later.

Sony innovates. Others copy.

>>4156915
I don't even know what to make of this post with all the wordfilters, I know desu is "to be honest".

>>4156918
How are my pics similar to Erwitt's? The dog one is a Moriyama takedown but I don't see the Erwitt similarity.

>>4156920
You fucking newfag

Get the fuck out desu

>>4156922
baka desu senpai KEK onions basedboy

File: DESU.jpg (61 KB, 525x400)

61 KB JPG

>>4156924
>on an anime weebsite
>doesn't even desu
fucking newfag gtfo my board

>>4156927
Yeah it's a word that weebs add at the end of every sentence so what

File: xd.png (1 KB, 91x99)

1 KB PNG

>>4156851
>arthritis
LMFAO!!!! brooooooo you just didnt say that... how big of a pussy are you bro?????

my nigga really says youll get arthritis from carrying 1-2 kilos, 3 kilos at most for a few hours. my woman... you do realize that there are jobs where people have to carry shit thats 20, 50, 100kg or more, every single day, for 8 hours, 6 days a week and they dont get arthritis. also brick laying, contruction work, taxi/truck driving, warehouse working, factory working or even pussy jobs like being a human tripod for a photographer holding strobes for the entire shoot, ALL OF THESE JOBS put way more strain on your wrists and muscles for longer periods of time, than you just carrying around a 2 kilos of plastic and glass around (highly likely on a wrist/neck strap too)

like you dont even have to go to the gym to be able to carry such an insignificant amount of weight around ALL DAY, let alone for only 2-3-4 hell even 6-7 hours!!!

i hear pussies complain about +/-100-200 GRAMS of difference between different camera bodies and new/old models of cameras and lenses 100-200 GRAMS DIFFERENCE IS LITERALLY UNNOTICEABLE LIKE HOW FUCKING WEAK ARE YOU BRO?!?!?!?!?

i been carrying around my dads 1DX2 with fucking flash on and a bag full of gear as a 14yo kid and youre crying about 50-100 grams difference as an ADULT MAN!!!

get fucked bro LOL you ''photographers'' have some mental issues to resolve before you do or say anything else LMFAO

>>4156881
>he doesn't filter non-Anonymous posters
Try it, the board quality improves massively.

File: Faggot.png (6 KB, 462x133)

6 KB PNG

>>4157261
>can't into java
>filters like a retard
Learn how to script, pleb. Ensure the entire element never gets displayed instead of expanding my comment like you just did.

>>4157268
He's probably one of those nerds who use 4chanX and hide the stub from there.
But you're right, those types rarely hide the stubs, they open the filtered posts so they can seethe more.

>>4157255
Canon users are wimps

Just today I found out they wrap their hand around the grip instead of holding the camera in a pinch. Lol why? Weak hands?

>>4157255
>>4157295
Sounds like you don't carry the camera in your hand for very long. The posture is what makes it bad, it's not that it takes a lot of force (it doesn't).