>>4181282
24-70 f4
40mm f2
85mm f1.8
20mm f1.8
enjoy life

File: 270.jpg (72 KB, 398x365)

72 KB JPG

i don't know, but it would need a lens and not whatever you wrote

>>4181282
400mm f2.8 Z mount

>>4181282
you should get a Shoten dumb adapter and whole suite of AIS manual lenses, fuck Z mount garbage

>>4181681
This guy gets it. RF and Z mount lenses are disgustingly flat and soulless and if absolutely must have the sharpest glass just buy Sigma because at least its cheap.

>>4181687
yannick khong started using modern lenses and now says "well actually maybe the glass or the coatings or something preserves microcontrast tonality transmissions" lol

It makes no difference. "rendering" in the consumer imaging sphere is a skill issue. You're not getting anything super special without paying out the ass for say, cooke cine lenses.

24-120 f4, then you can decide what primes you want by what focal length you shoot the most.

>>4181688
He still doesn't back down that a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 is extremely close to a Batis 50mm f1.8

>>4181737
clinical sharpness is flat and boring, when will you understand there's more to photography than this shit? (i.e. subject and composition, charter and unintended defects)

>>4181741
Zeiss Otus leness are dangerously sharp and still have great rendering, it's clear that the Canikon have chosen a shitty style of rendering and are sticking with it.

>>4181741
User error.

You can’t buy talent.

>>4181741
Reads like either buyers remorse from buying soft lenses or buyers remorse from buying a sharp lens but not being able to take a good photo with any lens

You can soften a lens infinitely with filters or post production but you can’t move the sharpening slider past like, 30. I see a sharp lens like giving a sculptor a bigger rock.

File: most handsome sony user.jpg (483 KB, 1920x1803)

483 KB JPG

>>4181813
>Be me
>FULL frame chad among half frame and quarter frame sissies
>taking pictures of birds from 6ft away using a 400mm f2.8 prime
>just long enough to keep the bird feeder out of the frame
>21 elements in 17 groups, weighs 3lbs, compact with a pleasant heft
>feel like my photos are too sharp to capture the atmosphere
>screw on a 120mm glimmerglass 2 filter
>my dad shows up with his hasselblad and 800mm f4 lens
>asks me what i'm doing and hands me a beer
>we take pictures of birds together for a few hours while talking about sports
>go home
>resize them all to 1920x1080 and post them on fred miranda
Fuji BTFO!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.30
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:03:07 20:58:50
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4181282
I just bought this camera today actually. I ordered a 50mm f1.8S with it. But Im also going to buy a Voigtlander 35mm f2 Apo-Lanthar.

>>4181812
>>4181813
reads like cope trying to justify your cumsoooming habbit

File: 537ca018d6a0fc127cd03f7c5(...).png (12 KB, 514x514)

12 KB PNG

>>4182463
>STOP HAVING NICER THINGS THAN ME
The fucking state of commies. A working white man has one nice thing made by actual human beings instead of $50 chink crap and all of a sudden it's conspicuous consumption. Why? Because the commie can't afford shit after their basket weaving degree and downtown apartment and they're jealous. Lemme guess kid you think driving anything but a used gook car is white privilege.

Get a job hippy. If you were too stupid and lazy to go to school for a real degree there's always construction and factory work. If my dad could walk into a steel mill and support a family of five right that day you can buy a stinkin $500 lens instead of some $50 lensbabble 7fartisans made in smal-dong zipperhead trinket. If you can't make at least $25 an hour in the USA you're probably too stupid to pass a piss test and show up for work on time and sober. If you still can't afford rent it's called a trailer park. Live in one. You might talk to some sane people for once.

File: images (2) (1).jpg (30 KB, 643x407)

30 KB JPG

>>4181285
>>4181287
>>4181436
>>4181681
>>4181687
>>4181688
>>4181694
>>4181737
>>4181741
>>4181746
>>4181812
>>4181813
>>4181821
>>4181837
>>4182463
>>4182469
OP here. Fuck off reddit poofters and give me some real answers. Also samefag

>>4182469
>I have nicer things therefore I'm better
lol the marketing companies LOOOVE retards like you, please, proceed, i'll buy your nice shiny thing for 20% one day when you've moved on to the next shiny

>>4182486
>the man, man
Wow you are a fuckin hippy

>>4182487
and you are an npc
>go figure

Just get the 24-200 and 40 f2 and fuck off

>>4182482
Voigtlander lenses, Leica lenses, F lenses, avoid Z(ombie) mount like the plague.

>>4182498
>Z(ombie)
what is this lame ass meme? Z mount is the biggest mirrorless lens mount which allows more like to hit the sensor, i'ts been proven to be superior and very likely future proofed for DMF camera ZMF

>>4182489
>braindead hippy already calling people “sheep”
To no one’s surprise. Sent from his chinese slave labor machine.

>>4182501
It's a good mount for adapting other, better lenses onto.

>>4182503
Yeah ok bullshit reddit boy where is the source then ya poofter?

>>4182502
ok mohammed

>>4182502
fuck the chinese they're practically bugs anyway

>>4182463
>>4182469
>>4182487
>>4182486
>>4182489
>>4182502
>>4182507
SAMEFAG FUCK OFF

File: SchizoPosting.png (5 KB, 332x186)

5 KB PNG

>>4182509
its too early for schizo posting mate

>>4182510
>using inspect element
Yeah fuck off retard

>>4182506
My eyes nigger, I don't need an MTF chart to tell shit lenses from good ones.

>>4182511
>implying everyone is as crazy as you are to prove a point
lol I ain't got no time for that shit

>>4182482
What do you shoot nigga? Shouldn't you know this already?

>>4182532
mostly my cat, road signs, petrol stations at night

>>4182532
Ya mams pussy fgt

>>4182513
>I trust my eyes bro
Ya fkn dum dog

>>4182542
Nikon NIKKOR Z 28-75mm f/2.8 Lens
if you want just one lens that's convenient.

Nikon NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.8 S
and
Nikon NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S
If you want primes with better image quality that you'll have to switch between

>>4182562
Trash reddit gear

File: Based_and_Redpilled_Checked.jpg (5 KB, 225x225)

5 KB JPG

>>4182469

>>4182765
>My cameras native lenses are trash
maybe you should have bought something else.

>>4182562
The prices on this shit are fucking comical. $700 and $500? For nikon's quality as of late?

I can get an 85mm f1.8 that is literally just as good from sony for $599 new, $400 used
I can get a 50mm f2.5 or 40mm f2.5 that is just as sharp and well made, and way more compact, from sony for $500, or a slightly worse 50mm f1.8 for $300

And if it's just a Z5 you don't even need LE SHAHP lenses. You could use tamron, samyang, sigma, viltrox etc lenses that are significantly cheaper and because it's only 24mp they will perform the same. Oh wait, Nikon sent everyone a C&D letter if they made an autofocus lens with an aperture+focal length combo that nikon already released or had planned. Sony doesn't have that problem. Enjoy buying a $250 paper thin adapter then.

>>4182942
>The prices on this shit are fucking comical. $700 and $500? For nikon's quality as of late?
Mang im sick of theese broke boys here crying about price. Ion know what yall doing you need to go to reddit for real shit

>>4182956
>proud of wasting money
>tells other people to go to reddit
See you at rentawheel. Gotta get dem layday loans so you can take out more on your visa.

>>4182542
CV 65mm f/2 if you love your cat

>>4182942
>I can get an 85mm f1.8 that is literally just as good from sony for $599 new, $400 used
So $100 less wow anon Nikon sure is robbing you
>I can get a 50mm f2.5 or 40mm f2.5 that is just as sharp and well made, and way more compact, from sony for $500
That's the same price for a slower lens what the fuck are you even upset about?
>Muh Sony
You people need to take more photos and stop seething over camera brands. It literally doesn't matter

>>4182960
>worrying about prices
Yall is a brokeboy fuck off for real. Post body ya bum bandit

>>4183019
>i aint broke i got mastercard
>car payments only $700 a month and they let me skip one sometimes i got it made
Lol americans

>>4182942
>I can get a 50mm f2.5 or 40mm f2.5 that is just as sharp and well made, and way more compact, from sony for $500, or a slightly worse 50mm f1.8 for $300
>f2.5
lmao
Sony cucks have battered wife syndrome, you're getting almost 2 stops less for nearly the same price. Sony is a gimmick brand.

>>4183025
F1.8 to F2.5 isn’t even a full stop and it’s less than half the weight of niggor’s equally sharp f1.8. Worth it if you aren’t a tasteless bokehwhore and want a small general use lens that fits in the bag next to the portrait prime, UWA, and telezoom.

I have literally never seen a good photo taken on a 50mm at f1.8 or wider.

>>4183035
Only wedding photographers and cat spammers do that shit desu. Max aperture autism is 100% because of weddings.

>>4183035
lol do you even hear yourself right now? You're a drooling schizo. Why are you so angry? Relax

>>4183041
A stellar non post from someone who just got btfo.

File: id_Photography_Cheat_Shee(...).png (101 KB, 800x999)

101 KB PNG

>>4183035
Except it is a full stop, lol. f/2 to f/2.5 isn't a full stop, but f/1.8 to f/2.5 sure as fuck is.

>>4183043
You didn't make any points. You just cope about how you don't "need" something. You are mind broken

>>4183045
We were both wrong amazing

>>4183046
I literally do not need it. There are larger lenses that are way better than nikon’s and I’m sure you think you don’t need those. Like the 55mm f1.8, which has beautiful rendering, or the 50mm f1.4 GM, which is probably too much quality for your wallet. I’m not buying either because wider apertures on lenses with so little reach are something i have never used. Back when everyone shot film I would only buy fast wide-normal lenses for the brighter viewfinder but stick to f4-f16.

>>4183025
>>4183045
>>4183055
>>4183019
Brainlet

>>4183056
>non drinker
Being sober on 4chan is a sin.

>>4183055
Ok so why are you commenting on a Nikon thread?
>or the 50mm f1.4 GM, which is probably too much quality for your wallet
so are the lenses I suggested for OP too expensive or too cheap which is it? Those lenses are not too expensive and give you a lot of versatility in terms of aperture. Yeah I don't need the top end Zeiss lenses or whatever but anything faster that 1.8 is niche.

If you know better than me than suggest better lenses for Z mount

>>4183060
Anything wider than 2.8 is niche.

ETZ adapter. The nikon 50mm f1.8 has soulless flat rendering

>>4183063
Yeah ok bullshit reddit boy where is the source then ya poofter?

>>4183063
All Z-mount Nikon lenses have soulless flat rendering. It's shocking and alarming to me that so few people are able to see it.

>>4183065
>source
I know you’re reddit but what am i?

I just received a Z5 and a 50mm f1.8S in the mail today. I have a Canon R6 since previously. Haven’t shot much with it yet but my initial impressions (first time trying a Nikon btw):

+ Significantly smaller and slightly lighter feeling than the Canon
+ Looks very cool (I prefer the square look vs the rounded Canon)
+ Lens much smaller and lighter than I expected
+ Colors SOOC seems nicer (but too early to tell for sure)
- Menu system seems very logical and straight forward

And now some negatives:
- LCD screen reminds me of my old Canon Rebel DSLR from 2006. It’s very low res and when in live view it shows a tremendous amount of noise and some lag. It feels like using a chink copy of the real thing.
- EVF is a bit better, but still noisy. It is also smaller than on the Canon. Overall this gives you the feeling of using a much cheaper camera than the R6 (which it is).
- The autofocus is slow and has a hard time locking on in lower light. I have yet to get the eye af to lock onto an eye. Will try again tomorrow during daylight. But so far I can tell it is way behind the Canon in terms of AF

I’m excited to shoot a lot with it tomorrow. It definitely feels cheaper than an R6 (and even a 6D) but other than that it is very nice to handle and it looks pretty amazing.

>>4183063
Suggest something better

>>4183095
Sony/zeiss 55mm f1.8

>>4183097
>Twice the price
>Not Z mount
literally what is wrong with you

>>4183100
You can adapt E-mount to Z-mount.

>>4183121
Fucking liar proof?

>lense

>>4183121
Why would you buy a camera just to adapt lenses. That's stupid

File: Techart_Featured.jpg (334 KB, 1280x720)

334 KB JPG

>>4183122
It's been out for a while.
>>4183126
Being able to adapt lenses is good for the consumer. Fuck Big Camera.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2019:06:20 15:46:27
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1280
Image Height	720

>>4183131
You are a shill that can't take a G master out of your ass

One lens? 24-120 f/4 S. Done.

>>4183131
This is not a good idea at all, unless you are actually full Sony

>>4183063
what makes it niche?

>>4183136
why?

alright guys i think i've settled on getting one of these lens

24-70mm f/4 S
or
24-120mm f/4 S

which one is better since they're both relatively the same price also why are they so fucking expensive

>>4183136
Lolwut
Sony lenses are generally superior jist because 1: sony/zeiss has to directly compete with other companies 2: there are more of them 3: sony has know how from zeiss, minolta, zenza, and some ex-nikon employees they hired.

>>4185925
Adapt a sony lens. Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or sigma 28-70 f2.8.

>>4185925
>they're both relatively the same price
Wat? I'd try to snipe one of 24-70 f/4 Z that used to come with Z6 kits. The other one is like $1k.

>>4185932
Tamron is basically sony now as well, and sigma is in bed with panasonic and leica. There’s a reason canon isn’t letting anyone develop for RF and nikon won’t let anyone compete directly with an existing Z mount lens. They’d get BTFO by L and E mount chads.

>>4185937
>nikon won’t let anyone compete directly with an existing Z mount lens
They already rebadged a couple of tamrons

>>4185944
aka
>you can make lenses for our mount but only if we get rights to a share of the profits and your name isn't on it, ours has to be, so people continue thinking we're good
imagine if every nikon camera said "sensor technology by sony". well, you see, nikon cameras really are rebadged sony sensors.

>>4185932
>Tamron 28-75 f2.8
This one is available for the Z mount too, it just caries a Nikon logo instead and costs $200 more.

>>4185952
But they color science is better

>>4181282
>lense

>>4185957
It’s the same… only the lightroom profile differs. Copy exif from a nikon photo and watch your skin tones improve. Or just select the pertinent profile if you can. You can in capture one. I’ve used c1 since 2015 and never had an issue matching sony and nikon raws or had green skin.

>>4185955
So $250 adapter cost makes them about equal but you gain access to a better lens ecosystem. Nice.

>>4185964
It just goes to show how many gear memes are derived from braindead youtubers opening their files in an outdated version of lightroom. The rest are based on shitty tests with uneven exposures and missed focus.

Did you know the actual exposures (due to lens T stop and occasionally gross error) on dpreviews comparison tools are different camera to camera? And they sometimes miss focus on part of their test chart because they shoot it at f5.6 and don't account for field curvature? Now you do. But people using that shit to compare cameras... don't.

>>4185970
Or that the dpreview test chart is not necessarily shot with the average lens for each camera or that using it to compare colors (or using any test chart to compare colors without profiling each camera on a pantone swatch set with a consistent light source) is invalid or etc
Basically all of gearfaggotry rests on shaky foundations. Most gearfags dont even know that more megapixels lets you reduce noise better and think 40mp fuji is pointless. And they don’t compare raws after identical noise reduction (yes, it does change the rankings).

>>4185935
the 24-70mm costs around 1000 USD, so relatively the same price as the 24-120mm

>>4185932
how do you adapt a tomron lens into the nikon camera? do you need a separate gadget for it

>>4186011
https://petapixel.com/2022/07/11/megadap-etz21-sony-e-to-nikon-z-adapter-review-nearly-seamless/

I'm gonna need an anon appear with etz adapter posting on /p/ before I trust that stuff works at all. Reviews ain't shit, it will be focus missing, distortion will be fucked, ibis will assume wrong focal length, buttons and aperture won't work, all that shit got to happen. No trust. If it does work I'm switching to Nikon.

>>4186023
It works. Lots of reviews on fredmiranda and dpreview.

>>4185964
Nah, Nikon has a look that cannot be replicated.

>>4185925
depends. Shit answer I know, but it really does. What sort of photography are you doing? Or don't you know. If you just want a general walkabout lens while you figure out what you like get the 24-120. Its a good lens and the extra reach gives you more options. If you know what you want and don't have much need for the 70-120 range, get the 24-70

File: Petahomo.png (56 KB, 713x717)

56 KB PNG

>>4186020
>petapixel

>>4186155
Only a cop uses the word "proclivity". It is otherwise so obscure it has become professional jargon.

File: fresh sold history.png (680 KB, 1244x1921)

680 KB PNG

>>4186010
It really doesn't, I mean, you can probably get it for $1k new in a separate box from some sort of an amazon reseller, complete with a free cleaning brush, but because it was a kit lens for so long, its resale/used value is completely different.

>>4186240
He means new. If you go into any store (like B&H or Adorama) then the price is $1000.

Thats a fraud price tho, because most people never pay more than $500 for it (in a kit).

File: 4g54g5h.jpg (118 KB, 584x799)

118 KB JPG

>>4181282
Sorry, a bit late to reply; If you're shooting Nikon Z mount, your first lens purchases should be:
1. Z 50mm f1.8
2. Z 85mm f1.8

Why these two lenses?
1. Both are cheap.
2. Both are ranked in the top 20 for sharpness (in actual laser machine tests - and by DXOMARK tests as well.)
3. Both have 2 (real) ASPH, high refractive index glass elements, which are usually found only in SUPER expensive, premium lenses.
4. Both have (real) APO glass elements,which are usually found only in expensive, premium lenses.
5. Because of the point #3 and $4, both lenses have top tier tonality and soft color transitions, which is usually reserved only for expensive, premium lenses.
6. The ASPH elements in the 50mm f1.8 are the same as those in their 50mm f0.95 Noct!

You will rarely see this kind of performance and these kind of glass elements in lenses that are priced under $2,000... On top of which, you also get two, SUPER SHARP lenses - all of that for only $1,300 (for both lenses!)

TLDR; Get the 50 & 85, f1.8 lenses. You're basically paying 500/800 bucks for a baby version of something like Nikon 50mm Z Noct, 55mm Zeiss Otus or 50mm Leica Summicron.

go for the 50mm 1.8 Z, the rest you'll figure out by yourself.

>>4186111
these morons think that the ''lens look'' pro photographers talk about in lenses is only colors and that it can be changed in post aka lightroom or photoshop... they dont realize that its about the glass elements and how the colors are reproduced to the sensor. thats why the larger the sensor, the more precise the glass in the lens needs to be, because the sensor gathers way more light aka way more information so the light that the lens passes onto the sensor needs to be as clean and as soft as possible.

thats why everyone gets their dick hard about zeiss lenses, leica lenses, cine lenses like cooke and medium format lenses for hasselblad and phase one cameras. they all have their own look that cant be modified in post. how the lens captures the image is what you get. in post you can only change colors, saturation, contrast and so on, you cant change the look of the lens and these idiots dont get that.

>>4186378
>>4186382
I second this. i got both 50 and 85. i also had the 24-70 but i returned it because the 50 and 85 made noticeably better images. i also tested the 70-200 and decided not to buy it for the same reason. atm i am stuck with 50 and 85 and im waiting for the 135 because i dont want to buy the 105, i think 135 is a much better focal length and also if the 135 is anything close to being as good as the 135 gm or 135 rf, it will probably be 10000x better than the 105

>>4186378
>>4186383
Really filters my photons
(AKA light particles)

>>4186384
105mm is quite good for close portraits and macro, it's a very niche lens, but many don't quite realize it.

otherwise, the 135mm is just phenomenal. I'm sure Nikon will deliver.

>>4186378
I have the 50 and I agree with you, it’s absolutely amazing. Equally sharp compared to my Sigma 40mm f1.4, but much better colors, contrast and 3d pop (however much uglier bokeh). Gonna get the 85 as well. If it is as good as the Canon RF 85mm f2, I’m happy. Lastly I’m getting the 35mm Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar as well.

>>4186384
>>4186389
I think the 105 may be too sharp for portraits. Macro lenses generally aren’t kind to human skin. Also f2.8 isn’t fast enough imo.

You could always adapt the 135 GM or the old EF 135 f2 in the meantime.

>>4186393
that's exactly the reason why I like the 105 for portraits, but I see your point, and you're totally right about it's sharpness and render for human skin.

if OP's not in a hurry to build his set, he sure can wait for a good 135mm that might come from Nikon. But focus on the 50mm1.8Z for now!!

>>4186388
photons lol???? youre dumb

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

3.75 MB JPG

>>4181282

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4186414
This is straight nonsense

I've gone through 3 copies of the sony 1.8/85 and every one had varying degrees of decentering and severe bokeh fringing. They're all made in vietnam now, using tamron's factory. And my 1.8/50 is total junk. Might as well adapt a vintage pentax lens.

File: 20231939.jpg (208 KB, 1455x1066)

208 KB JPG

>>4186393
>Also f2.8 isn’t fast enough imo.
1. That depends on who you ask. Not everyone shoots within the same photography field, not everyone has the same style of shooting and not everyone restricts their composition and angle to only and solely ''bokeh!''
2. I, for example, rarely find myself shooting below f5.6, maybe f4 and that's in or outside my studio and with or without strobes. I am rarely below f5.6, f4 at the lowest. The widest I will go with strobes is f8-f11, depending on where I'm doing the shoot. If we're out in sunlight, I will even close down to f16 or higher. The one and only time I will force going below f4, is when my location and/or composition requires or can take advantage of ''bokeh.'' Otherwise, it's always f5.6 or higher.

Professionals aside, even amateurs, beginners, hobbyists and sub-professionals, which makes up about 70-80% (possibly even more) of all photographers, will shoot at f2.8 or higher, rarely below that. Now take low end to high end professionals into the picture and close to nobody will shoot below f5.6/f6.3. 99% of us will hang around f11, going slightly lower or higher as we need. Low/Fast aperture lenses are, for the most part, just a marketing trick for the masses. Nothing more. You will buy a f0.95 lens but then as time goes by, you will realize that you're doing most of your shoots at f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8 and f11 and then... Then you will realize that you should have gotten that other, cheaper f2 lens that has a better look, instead of spending thousands on a marketing trick.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2023:06:04 03:22:47
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4186415
only the 2016 version of the sony 1.8 50mm is good, other 50mm lenses are complete garbage, like actual garbage, no exaggeration. and sonys 2017 1.8/85 is known to be one of the sharpest, most optically clean lenses there are and its look is often compared to zeiss and leica lenses. that lens is ranked as one of the most optically perfect on every single site, from dxo mark to individuals like ken rockwell, everyone says the lens is optically close to perfect. and the mtf charts for that lens are pure gold, mainly because of the low element count. either you got extremely unlucky with your copies or youre lying.

>>4186419
>other 50mm lenses are complete garbage
Honestly I don't understand that, across any system, any serious modern lens manufacture, I struggle to find one without a glorious 50mm lens.
It's like, most of them are great.

>>4186428
Sony hates 50s.

>55 f1.8
No AF/MF switch... really. It's not on the body either. Lose a custom button for something that's on most of their lenses now. Honestly the least bad despite it
>50 f2.5
Good rendering, sharp, good features? Yes. Also, f2.5. I hope you never use fast apertures ever. Gloomy color cast, you can't post process it out.
>50 f1.8
Worst QC ever
>50 f1.4
Absolute shit that tarnished the zeiss name
>50 f1.2 GM
FLAT rendering, snoy colors, i don't care how sharp you think it is
>50 f1.4 GM
Budget f1.2.

>>4186414
>no Canon or Fujinon 200mm F2
who did this is smoking crack

File: Screenshot_2023-06-04_20-05-42.jpg (26 KB, 621x552)

26 KB JPG

>>4181282
thank god this thread is still going and you haven't bought anything, you can now buy the perfect lens

>>4186434
this is a long way to say you can't afford a Sony

>>4186418
You're completely right but in that case just use a 24-105 or 70-200mm f2.8. I don't see a point in buying an expensive prime lens if you are never going to shoot it wide open.

>>4181285
>buying 4 different lenses and only covering 20-85mm
Yikes

>>4183045
>sweet spot
What did they mean by this?

File: 7B446BF7-5FBE-498A-B909-5(...).jpg (1.18 MB, 931x1400)

1.18 MB JPG

My main problem with the S-line primes is the bokeh. Look at how busy (and shitty) it looks. This was shot with the 85mm f1.8.

Other than this I love my 50mm. But wondering if I should just buy an FE mount Sigma or Sony and attach it?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.4.1 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	948
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	85 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2019:10:03 22:43:37
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	931
Image Height	1400
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4186747
Ok that’s atrocious bokeh, a helios 44-2 might be unironically a better choice than that

>>4186513
>im exclusive because i own a sony
sorry but if your ego is inflated because you own a camera thats priced at the same as every other brand, you must not have anything else going for you. its like saying im rich because i own an iphone

>>4181282

One possibility is FTZ2 + Ai-P 45mm f/2.8

>>4186513
No. I do have a sony. And almost too many returns on my amazon account.

>>4186747
Jesus fucking christ. Meike tier. So much for "the best lens ever", zeissschizo.

Did you get a FTZ with your body? Just use one of the older lenses

>>4186747
>main problem with the S-line primes is the bokeh
ahh, another photographer where the most important part of their photos is the out-of-focus backgrounds.

>>4186762
Another one is some adapter to EF and 40mm f/2.8
But why

>>4186769
>Bokeh... bad!
Group f64 was old news 90 years ago. Now if you call it toneh, all of your opinions go in the trash.

Bokeh is nice to have and if it's distracting it's totally worthless. Now go shoot your f5.6 primes on micro four thirds and tell everyone on your forum that your photos are tack sharp.

>>4186761
i never said i owned a Sony, just pointing out that your behavior is reminiscent of jealous wanting

>>4186764
so Sony do have good customer service? huh

>>4186747
>>4186767
>two nophoto faggots calling actual photographers who post on this shitty website schizos and complaining about lenses not being good because ''muh bokeh'' (of course) because thats all that matters in a lens after all
walk up to your window, open it and then jump you gearfagging retards

File: rrl.jpg (975 KB, 2568x1250)

975 KB JPG

>>4186435
I did that list with the help of 3 other photographers so it doesn't come out biased. Also, the list isn't yet complete, I still have to add 7 more lenses that we all tested individually. As for Canon and Fuji 200mm not being on the list, in case of Canon, the 2/200 is superb but it's not as good as the lenses on this list, this list is only reserved for ''The Best of The Best Ever Made'' - if I were to put every single amazing lens on the list, the list would have 300+ lenses and there really wouldn't be a point in making such a list - that's why I got the idea to make a list of only ''THE BEST'' lenses for each manufacturer, to help people narrow down their search when looking for which lenses to buy. That's the sole purpose of why I even decided to go through with making that list and when completed, that list will be the most accurate to this date - that you can find anywhere on the internet, that is.

We spent thousands and thousands on renting lenses, some of which were EXTREMELY hard to get our hands on (e.g. Cooke, Panavision, Angenieux, Zeiss Cine, etc...) and we had went through, probably just over 600 lenses over the past decade, both old and new, doing both real world shoots and studio chart tests with them. (And that's me saying just over 600 for the sake of this conversation, in reality, the number is probably closer to 650-700 lenses...)

As for the Fujinon 2/200, I haven't tested the Fujinon 2/200, in fact, I haven't tested most APS-C lenses, focus of my list is for four of us to test Full Frane and Medium Format lenses only - but if an APS-C lens is really, really good, we will get it, test it and then possibly slap it onto the list too if it's worthy of it - just like we did with a couple of those Fuji XF lenses and the Mitakon 0.95/35 for both FF and Fuji APS-C.

Once the list is done, I'll post it all over the place to help people filter down hundreds of trash lenses.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M4
Camera Software	Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:04:29 02:19:22
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Brightness	6.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4187183
Mad because your best lens eva does the same shit as a $250 yonguo mate?

Lens schizo there only shoots deep focus with telephotos so he’s biased as fucm

>>4187187
Ok I'm all for tier ranking efforts like this, but a couple of questions/suggestions:
- why not organize them a bit? maybe split up cine vs non-cine, put each brand on a new line, maybe cluster similar ones like Nikon AI/AI-s together in ascending FL?
- did you add some lenses in here just to troll people? How does the tamron 17-50mm f2.8, a positively mediocre zoom, find its way onto the same table as an Otus etc. And was the Nikon 35/2 just meme'd on there without using it?

>>4187199
>>4187187
thanks for making that list, its interesting. but these lenses are best at what, portraits? and where is the sigma art DG HSM f1.4? The one that started it all for Sigma. Until this day, I havent seen anything that beats it.

>>4187187
also why no voigtlander lenses? especially the apo-lanthars.

>>4187201
That guy considers f4 too wide so best at shooting with flash at f16 where basically every lens performs the same at all objective metrics

>>4187204
lol

>>4187187
did you test the new 2.5/135 APO Mitakon for e/z/rf mounts? or their new 1.4/65 for hasselblad x mount? both lenses are god tier on par with zeiss and leica and hasselblads own lenses and they should 100% be on your list

>>4187195
>>4187204
>no photo faggot calling people schizo again
just fuck off, your arguments are always nophoto tier and irrelevant to actual photography

>>4187199
you are joking about the tamron and nikon right? those lenses are god tier on literally every list. that particular tamron was the best they made but it wasnt that sharp and the nikon 2/35 was literally compared to zeiss lenses for having the same look.

>>4187202
i see voigts on the list they are next to leica fourth row. he pretty much added all the voigts lol as they should be

>>4187211
what do you mean by the tamron kit zoom being "god tier"? it was awesome in 2006, when it was released. now it's outresolved by literally any Z lens (including the plastic 16-50). not to mention the insane amount of sample variation, meaning you have to buy 3 to get a normal one. why even have shitty plastic consumer kit zooms on a list like this? just to bait responses?

>>4187214
Might have misunderstood and meant 17-28 and 28-75 tamron zooms

>>4186414
Where are the Sigma DG DN Contemporary series? Where are the modern Tamrons? And the Samyang primes for E mount? Where are all the wide angle lenses like the Nikon Z 20mm f1.8 or Sony 20mm f1.8 G?

>>4187238
lens schizo couldn’t figure out how to take a good wide angle photo (they do demand flawless lighting and location) so he only begrudgingly includes lenses as wide as 35 because some of his coworkers use them

also the sony planar 50 f1.4 za is hot garbage why is it on there?

>>4187214
>kit lens
>muh sharpness
The xr asph 17-50 is not a kit lens and is one of the nicest lenses tamron ever made. Its literally a 17-50mm version of the 2002 Leica 21-35 mm Vario-Elmar R. Basically the same lens with a bigger focal range. Same rendering/colors/contrast but 10x cheaper than Leica. Just because its not “tack sharp” doesnt mean its a shit “kit lens”

Some of you need professional help, gearfaggong around bokeh and sharpness as if that makes or breaks an image or matters in any way shape or form… youre not photographers youre snapshitters

>>4187238
>guy invests time and money into creating a list of best lenses
>”where muh sigma!!!”
>”where muh wide lenses”
In the trash thats where. what the fuck makes you think lenses like shitma or shityang belong anywhere near that list? Same with wide lenses, literally no one except earthfags streetfags and cinefags shoot with wides and also im pretty fucking sure that 15-20% of the lenses on that list are wide (otus, zeiss cine, cooke, panavision and other cine lenses, zeiss batis, voigt vintage, voigt modern, hasselblad, schneider, leica…etc) plenty of wide lenses on that list, too many if you ask me

>>4187241
>lens schizo
do you just go around /p/ calling everyone who prefers quality products a achizo because you have mental issues or because youre poor? or maybe both?

>>4187386
>In the trash thats where. what the fuck makes you think lenses like shitma or shityang belong anywhere near that list?
Sigma makes good glass. Its the favorite brand among lens connoisseurs.

>>4187376
Are we talking about the same lens? Of course sharpness isn’t everything, but it’s the only reason i could find for its potential inclusion in a best of the best list like this. Otherwise it’s just your standard zoom and really only usable from f4 anyway. That is if you can find one that doesn’t need a ton of focus adjustment because they didn’t bother with QC as they were just shitting these out during the entry level dslr heydays. Contrast colors rendering now you’re trolling. Either make a real “best” list or yea, why not, let’s start including every shitty consumer zoom we can find. Apparently i am the only one who has actually used this lens extensively

>>4186110
Does it really?
>fredmiranda and dpreview
>petapixel.com
No thank you, I mean it, it needs to start showing up in exifs. Not here then on flickr. No one is doing this.

>>4187386
>rants about magic lenses and hating wide angles
>very few photos posted
That’s pretty schizo.

>>4186747
This is more an example of why it's dumb to just always shoot wide open. No depth in foreground or visual transition in the background. You might as well just be shooting in studio against a backdrop and photoshop in whatever blur you want.
You should stop down, get even more sharpness and fewer aberrations while still getting plenty of subject isolation and background, which will actually look better when it's just a blurry mess.

>>4187488
>hating wide angles
Is this the same anon that only shot 50mm and 135mm, ranted about wide angles, and then posted that shitty "award winning" beach portrait as an example of their work?

>>4187187
>We spent thousands and thousands on renting lenses
and yet you don't post actual photos taken with them
just another nophoto schizo with an authority complex

>>4187490
The entire point of wide open bokeh is when you want what is basically a studio backdrop rather than the location, anon. If you hate bokeh you must hate backdrops for hiding those super interesting walls

>>4187491
It is, he’s a manny ortiz tier portrait guy who uses a 55mm f1.8 za and 135mm f1.4 gm exclusively because he can never seem to get a shoot at a good location i guess

135mm is just excessive. How far away you standing bro? Deodorant and an 85mm, it’s a lifehack.

>>4187490
>muh cinematic photography
Go shoot an anamorphic lens if you love it so much you insufferable cunt.

>>4187494
To each their own I guess, when I shoot wide open it's certainly not for that. I love bokeh, I just hate shots like that. Pretty easy to shoot wide open, while still including the context around the subject. That should would 100% look better stopped down to like f2.8-4.

>>4187498
And then you realize there’s something in the context that didn’t look good at all and it’s preferable to setting up a 200lb backdrop rig. AND, women love it. Only male photographers complain about blurry backgrounds because it’s an easy way to sound more cultured and imply you’re better.

File: f14.jpg (1.97 MB, 1657x2724)

1.97 MB JPG

>>4187501
>And then you realize there’s something in the context that didn’t look good at all
Good thing I have legs to move and get a different composition. I'm all for using bokeh to obscure context, but you can overdo it. If it's for actual work, no shame in photoshopping out obstructions either.
Like I think f1.4 in picrel is a bit too much, but I'd say f2-f2.8 would definitely looks better, and f5.6-8 would start getting too much the other way.

>>4186747
It's not the lens at fault there. It's not "busy", it's that you have fully defined bokeh balls. You have entered TONEH.
>>4186760
You'd get closer with the Helios that's why

>>4187504
You can’t always move, nor tell the model to move. Sometimes context sucks everywhere. It’s an ugly place and nobody likes it. But it makes for good bokeh. And sometimes I LIKE bokeh and people who say “toneh” only strengthen my resolve.

i cant see each individual leaf in the background so i can not enjoy this photo of a beautiful woman! -homosexuals

>>4187516
I like bokeh too. I just think 99% of wide open shots would look better even just 1 stop down.
Even for >>4186747, the background would be still blurred enough at f2.8 to hide anything, but would look likely much better.

>>4187519
Or he could just use the sony 85mm f1.8, which is a better and cheaper lens, and the bokeys would be much better and less distracting.

File: f-stop-comparison.jpg (611 KB, 1000x743)

611 KB JPG

>>4187523
or just stop down a bit

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	846
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2021:04:06 18:26:32
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	140
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4187529
Stopped down actually looks worse than either max bokeh or deep focus here.

Also remember better wide open also means better stopped down. The nikkor (that’s our word, but you can say nikka) just isn’t that good as an all around lense.

>>4187529
left one looks like a professional photo. right one looks like an iPhone picture.

>>4187529
Bokeh is still pretty bad in the right image. This is still a Nikon lens, isn't it? The tree branches look like shit.

>>4187536
Yep still nikon

No wonder sony took the #2 spot despite taking 4 generations to get weather sealing, customer service, and more than 5 good lenses.

File: DSC_0672_DxO-4.jpg (2.9 MB, 6000x4004)

2.9 MB JPG

Taken today with a Nikon Z5. Thought I'd take the opportunity to ask; how do I know if the horizon is straight? I've saved about a dozen different versions of the same image with slightly different tilts.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 5
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 6.6.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	62550
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:06:06 18:09:18
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	11.22 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4004
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO0
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	50.0 mm; f/1.8
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	672

File: DSC_0694_DxO.jpg (4.05 MB, 5940x3964)

4.05 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 5
Camera Software	DxO PhotoLab 6.6.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	62550
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:06:06 18:17:38
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	11.22 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5940
Image Height	3964
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO0
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	50.0 mm; f/1.8
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	694

>>4187529
Somewhere in the middle would look best.

>>4187544
The camera has a digital level to help you though it is not displayed by default, you have to cycle through DISP. If it has to be pixel perfect you can adjust the rotation in post.

>>4187581
>The camera has a digital level to help you though it is not displayed by default
Yes I know but it doesnt always get perfectly level even tho it looks that way in the camera. Especially with VR/IBIS activated. So a lot of the times my horizons are slightly crooked. I was thinking in post if theres a quick way to do it. Auto-leveling doesnt seem to work that well in DXO.

>>4187595
Oh I just overlay a straight grid to my picture and rotate until I'm happy with it. Usually takes fewer than 2° anyway. I don't use dxo, maybe it has an automated way. The rotate and perspective module in darktable lets you define an arbitrary vertical or horizontal line in the scene and then rotate to fit.

>>4187595
The horizon isn't naturally flat even if your camera is perfectly level with the earth. The planet is lumpy. The oceans are rolling and pulled around by gravitational forces.

Just manually level

>>4187492
He literally posted 2 in both of his posts
Nophoto poorfags will nophoto poorfag

>>4187535
Youre fucking artistically retarded if you think the wide open photo looks better, especially in the setting his subject is in

>>4187808
>especially in the setting
yet another ugly as shit half dead patch of "forest" somewhere on the west coast or in canada with a trailer park in the back?

yeah, blur as much of that out as possible.

>>4187407
And its the least fav brand among actual photographers whose name means something

>>4187810
by what standards
the bloggosphere
dpreview
gxace?

>>4187422
First off im not the guy who made the list and second off you got a bad copies 100% because back when i had mine i used it alongside my expensive glass because the images looked the same or better with that cheap tamron. Also when it came out that lens was literally compared to the $2,000 Leica 21-35mm and praised for making almost the same looking images as that expensive leica lens thanks to aspherical and apo elements which i think, correct me if im wrong, but that was the second lens ever from tamron that had actual aspheric and actual apo glass elements not just coatings, just like that leica lens it was compared to……

Again youre either fucking lying or you got really unlucky with your lens copies

>>4187488
Thats all you got from that comment?
Spoken like A true insufferable nophoto 4channer

>>4187494
i also shoot with 35, 50, 100 and 135 the most and i use the 50 for 90% of my stuff i use 100 or 135 for closeups headshots detail shots etc depends on who or what im shooting and im guessing every photographer with even half a brain does the same

Who the fuck would do a full body shot with a 135 or 100 ? you guys are something….

(Something retarded)

>>4187816
>Who the fuck would do a full body shot with a 135 or 100 ? you guys are something….
Me. I photograph very small people.

>>4187812
>”actual photographers whose name means something”
>proceeds to name internet forums
youre special

>>4187819
The cinematographers who shot top gun mean a lot more than these guys you can't name, because you see, cinema is a superior art form.

File: 84B1914F-03A4-47BF-9D24-B(...).jpg (131 KB, 773x436)

131 KB JPG

>>4187817
>shooting kids
>using 135 instead of 35 + 85 or 90

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	773
Image Height	436

>>4187822
I'd prefer 7.62, really, but this is for posterity and people get nervous if I'm too close to them.

>>4187821
>cinematographers
>teams of 20 or more people with dozens or hundreds of millions in gear
yeah they definitely created that “art” (stage play) themselves and they are definitely more skilled :))

Even fucking Deakins the legend himself said that making a good still might require less physical work but is much harder and that he has nothing but respect for them. meanwhile theres you spitting shit on a weeb/porn imageboard website

Bye cinefag

>>4187825
>people get nervous if I'm too close to them
Must be american 100%

>>4187828
>Still didn't name the photographers whose names actually matter
Sigma lenses are well liked by the vast majority of people, professionals included. They aren't all bad because the oversized 50mm art you bought was bad. Sony has terrible GM lenses, not just that, but terrible camera bodies. Why not hate them?

>>4187831
im not the anon but come on youre just trolling at this point. come on dude...

sigma lenses are not bad? come on now... stop gearfagging. sigma lenses are well liked by professionals? like who? 'professional' many ortizz? 'professional' pierre lambert? or maybe 'professional' matt granger? come on dude, you cant be real. no one but poorfags, gearfags and ''professionals'' would ever in their life willingly put a sigma lens on his/her camera.

GM lenses terrible? you have to be trolling and baiting, right?!?!

File: h76.jpg (389 KB, 1019x667)

389 KB JPG

>>4187831
>Still didn't name the photographers whose names actually matter
what does that have to do with anything or with any of the conversations going on in the thread? are you cognitively impaired?

but since you're being such an insufferable cunt, here's a couple names so you can cherry pick one or two that YOU think are not good and completely change the subject and try to twist the argument to your advantage because subconsciously you know you are wrong, you now that sigma lenses are shit and you know that nobody whose name means anything uses these shitty ''muh sharpness and bokeh!!'' lenses, so here's some names; Robert Richardson, Rodrigo Prieto, Riccardo Spatolisano, Roger Deakins, Michael Muller, Gordon Willis, Sails Chong, Paul Reiffer, Simon Puschmann, Yulia Gorbachenko, Ed Lachman, Bella Kotak, Chung-hoon Chung, Gian Paul Lozza, Geoff Ang, Peter Coulson, Tim Flach, Morten Hilmer, Peter Lindbergh, Max Thompson, Jason Bassett, Bruno Massao, Quentin Caffier, Chris Doyle, Greig Fraser, Hoyte Van Hoytema, Chris Bilodeau, Justin Chung, Gemmy Woud, Jeff Berlin and many, many, many more...

no fucking body who cares about their photos and look, will use lenses from sigma or similar manufacturers. even most of your so called ''professionals'' will just stick to native manufacturer lenses and even if they use 3rd party lenses its usually from zeiss, voigtlander, mitakon or some random vintage manufacturer. even those fucking pixel peeping, gearfagging baboons and lens review channel owners, even they will praise shitma or shityang on their videos but if they actually do photography for work and if you look at what they actually use when working, its rarely sigma lenses even for these retards, most of them just use native canikonsnoy lenses or other 3rd part lenses that are actually good or just straight up go full hipster mode and own 10 leica bodies and 30 leica lenses.

again, no actual photographer whose name and work mean something, fucking uses shitma

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4187952
can we start referring to this as sigma derangement syndrome?

>>4187807
Great, which posts with what lenses used? If someone says X lens is GOAT, I'd want to see some examples that highlight why X lens is GOAT. Pictures > words. I just want to see examples, not simply take some schizo anon's word for it.
Every shot I've seen from that poster, has been mediocre enough to assume their advice is shit. They got roasted in the other thread for their beach shot.

>>4187955
bro even on 4chan /p/ at the very least 80% hate sigma lenses. and its like that for a reason. the lenses are shit and are only good for getting that sharpness and wide aperture bokeh on your new $1,000 camera when youre just starting out. if their lenses were even a cent more expensive, youd need to have an actual syndrome to buy these shit products.

>>4187958
and 100% couldn't tell pictures taken with sigma vs ziess/leica when given a blind test

>>4187955
when did you hear Richardson, Berlin, Chung, Prieto or Coulson say ''For this shot/scene i want XYZ look, let me just pick up my SIGMA lens right quick''???? you fucking didnt ever hear them say that because sigma lenses are basically just shit quality window glass grinded, buffed and polished to be as sharp as possible, sprayed with a couple coatings and then slapped into a shit quality lens, calling it a day after making 100,000 copies in 2 hours so they can sell to consoomers aka. retards like you.

>>4187959
nobody cares. only gearfags defens sigma glass

>>4187961
>when did you hear Richardson, Berlin, Chung, Prieto or Coulson
never, but if that's your standard, there are a mountain of lenses and even brands we should disregard I guess
>>4187962
not trying to defend sigma, just would like for someone to actual demonstrate what they mean
what do I look for? how do I recognize it? how come /p/ couldn't identify it? if they did test shots with thousands of lenses, why can't they post simple a/b comparisons?

>>4187962
Sounds more like only gearfags hate sigma lenses

It is a lens, light goes through it, you get a picture, no magic involved. Their designs are often worse than tamron but sometimes they hit one out of the park, but that's the nice thing about not having a closed mount. You can buy lenses from more than one maker. All you have to do is not be an autistic brand loyalty gearfag worrying about which lenses the photographers you look up to have NOT used.

>>4187961
Entire movies were shot for the sigma look. I can't find a single thing wrong with the sigma 90mm f2.8, 45mm f2.8, 20mm, 24mm, and 65mm f2 lenses, 105mm macro, etc. The 24-70 f2.8 is great, the 150-600 is great, and the 14-24 f2.8 is known for its rendering, not sharpness, and yet it is still pretty sharp.

They also carry the neglected APS-C format hard and even leica partners with them to design some of their lenses from time to time. It's a lens maker. They are not satan. Get over it dude.

You have more rational reasons to hate sony because while sigma's shitty lenses predominantly come from their time when they were targeted the budget segment, sony targeted the pro segment while claiming bodies with 0 weather sealing actually had it and dragging the zeiss name through the mud with absolute trash lenses that were not even "real zeiss" and were outdone in every department by samyang.

>>4187961
> ''For this shot/scene i want XYZ look, let me just pick up my SIGMA lens right quick''
They are well respected especially among japanese filmmakers. You know the culture, eye for quality, but also eye for beauty, wabi-sabi and all that. But I'm sure they are bad... somehow.
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/magazine/m_series/cine-lenses/shot-on-cine-lenses/
inb4 racism.

>>4187995
> actually had it and dragging the zeiss name through the mud with absolute trash lenses that were not even "real zeiss"
> "real zeiss"
True. Actually Zeiss hasn't made a camera lens in decades. All of their modern lenses are made by other manufacturers who simply used some glass from Zeiss and licensed their name. For example the Zeiss Batis-series are made by Tamron. The Zeiss Otus is made by some other japanese company, etc.

>>4188008
Cosina

And sony, shortly into the partnership, started releasing lenses with curiously zeiss-like designs, and then ended the partnership.

>>4181282
dumb lenseposter

>>4188008
It gets far worse than that. Zeiss does not even design their lenses. The “zeiss” 55/f1.8 was designed and produced entirely by sony. To be specific, it was designed entirely by Naoki Miyagawa. The brand name really means “inspired by zeiss”. And this is the norm. The batis were also truly 100% tamron. There is no zeiss. It’s like putting a leica badge on an x100v. Sony, tamron cosina etc did all the work and just paid zeiss some money to use their name for marketing. The patents on zeiss glass are all long expired so nobody actually needs zeiss to make zeiss lenses… again the “zeiss” 55mm was 100%, from design to manufacture, a sony lense that merely paid homage to a zeiss sonnar. If you like zeiss and believe their glass or design expertise is supreme, you actually like sony, cosina AKA voigtlander, and tamron.

>>4188017
aka minolta, zenza bronica, and nikoh

you guys arguing about this shit again kek jesus how do you have the energy for this shit
people will use specific lenses for specific looks and thats a fact, especially so the higher up the photography pyramid you go and the better photographers you look at, thats another fact. then yet another fact is that only certain manufacturers make lenses that offer whatever look a photog or cinematog is going for for his shot or scene and sadly, sigma and whatever other lens manufacturers of that leve, are just not offering that type of quality, either because their manufacturing standards and budget just isnt allowing them to do so or because they are a greedy company and just want to dish out and sell as many lenses as possible, while manufacturing them for the cheapest price possible, whiever the case is of the two, it doesnt matter because at the end of the day, whatever the reason might be, they are not investing as much money into manufacturing and engineering as other manufacturers do and that shows in material and optics quality.

>>4188008
Zeiss stopped manufacturing (keyword manufacturing) lenses for consumer market after the whole Sony-Zeiss contract fiesta that happened. they were still involved in the cinema industry, although they seem to have left that too. the batis and otus lenses are still designed and engineered by zeiss, they just didnt spend money on entire manufacturing line costs and isntead outsourced it to whichever other company that has the ability to manufacture it FOR them. that costs them less than buying materials and running an entire factory by themselves. TLDR; tamron didnt make the batis lenses, they just manufactured it for zeiss. same as sony manufactures sensors for other companies. outsourcing the manufacturing process is MUCH MUCH cheaper than running a factory for yourself. same with otus line. literally every company in the world, from cars and phones, to your dishwasher and spoons and clothes, everyone outsources manufacturing.

>>4188017
wrong... read this >>4188028

also, the ZA and GM line of lenses exist only thanks to zeiss. sony stole (legally, through contract) some of the lens design and engineering secrets from zeiss and started making their own line of lenses and ''improving'' on zeiss design. bla bla bla theres a whole bible about this online, there was a whole Carl Zeiss vs Sony legal battle going on for like 5-6 years in Japan and Germany from like 2013 and it lasted all the way to like 2019, which is also when the Sony-Zeiss partnership contract expired. anyway, in short to skip writing about this bullshit, the ZA and GM line of lenses are basically Sonys attempt at stealing and improving on Zeiss's sonnar, planar, distagon, biogon and flektogon lens designs. thats why GM, ZA and some of their cheaper G and regular unlabeled lenses have that zeiss look.

and its not only zeiss... sony did the same shit with tamron. they partnered up right after the whole zeiss fiasco and then not even a year went by and there was a whole other fiesta with sony and tamron... i have no fucking idea what its about but apparently sony did the same shit they did with zeiss...

these fucking companies, not just sony, canon and nikon too, they are all scum. zeiss was one of the last OG and best lens manufacturers and tanks to sony we may never get a new zeiss lens for ILCs ever again.

>>4188031
>canon and nikon too, they are all scum
?

>>4188031
>tanks to sony we may never get a new zeiss lens for ILCs ever again.
If I was Zeiss, I'd make a new line of lenses for mirrorless - but only for Nikon and Canon - and would purposefully leave out Sony, just so that people start asking question why these lenses are not available on E mount. Then I would blow the whole story out, expose Sony and ruin the Sony name and reputation forever.

>>4188033
if you only knew what canon and nikon are doing behind the curtains. do some research about these greedy shameless pests and every time you buy a product from them, you will cringe with shame and regret for supporting such scum. panasonic and pentax are the only two manufacturers that didnt stain their name and reputation (yet) well pentax makes shit outdated products but can you blame them really?

>>4188028
Zeiss stopped manufacturing anything but a small handful of their classic lenses for consumers far, far, far before the sony-zeiss contract. They were basically cosina/tokina way, way before minolta became the sony camera and optics division.

It's not really even stealing because the patents on the fundamental designs are expired - even for the original T* coating, so not just slight modifications but full reproductions are legal, and what do you expect... zeiss hasn't even been making their own lenses since the 80s.

>They were designed by zeiss!
No, they were designed by cosina and approved by zeiss, possibly given some input by zeiss, and production had to be overseen by zeiss, which as shown by their invovlement with sony, where they had to move MANY more units, does nothing. Likewise for batis. All designs were created by tamron, and submitted by tamron, and then approved by zeiss who required licensing fees and the right to oversee production.

In other words, zeiss directly taught and tutored everyone on how to design and produce lenses just like them, everyone else was free to improve that further, and now can't do anything about it. Mind you sony, tamron, and cosina were already powerhouses because sony has all of minolta's engineers and their experience, and tamron is ditto with bronica, although tamron's heritage is less known because of how many ultra cheap lenses they made.

Zeiss was never even real to begin with, the OG company was destroyed due to nazi bullshit. Zeiss in name only is far from new. The only real zeiss is zeiss cinema lenses. Period.

>>4188034
>But only for nikon
Guess who makes a lot of Nikon's lenses... Tamron, lol. And who makes some of the few third party lenses for nikon? Voigtlander AKA cosina AKA the vast majority of "zeiss".

>>4188031
i believe zeiss was also involved in the whole sony tamron fight. i think it was a 3way fight or something

>>4188031
>sony's attempt at stealing a 100 year old design
lol
well, they made them way better. considering all of sony's best engineers are ex-minolta and designed lenses that could compete directly with leica optics.

>>4188036
Zeiss' german factories produce medical, military, and scientific optics and are far more involved in semiconductor production than this lens bullshit btw. Sony phones still have T* logos on them btw. The "fight" was just sony deeming that zeiss licensing and QC was expensive, ineffective, and unnecessary for E mount cameras. and it really was because you dont need zeiss for tamron to make uh, a tamron.

dont get emotional over consumer lens designs that are old enough to be in the grave by now. zeiss doesn't actually care either. zeiss and ASML are basically one unit and that matters more to zeiss, and the industry as a whole, than a consumer lens design - they are the reason sony is even able to produce sensors.

>>4188036
apparently, zeiss now shifted their focus primarily into medical industry, bio research, semicondustor and industrial machinery. their vision care and microscopes divisions dont get funneled as much money anymore and their photography and film division is basically gets $0,00

>>4188041
>Now
Trend started in 1983. Trend towards zeiss leaving consumer optics started in 2005. And the original zeiss company that started their tradition of camera optics was effectively dissolved post WW2 regardless, so, who cares?

You sound like you romanticize the idea of using a zeiss lens but the fact is for quite a while now, zeiss lenses haven't been zeiss, because zeiss basically taught everyone else how to be zeiss planning on extracting licensing and QC services fees, which turned out to be a terrible business model when you are working with expired patents.

>>4188040
thats the point but i dont have my way with words.... you explained it basically.
the whole TLDR of the entire Zeiss bible story is that the only reason sony and some other manufacturers are what they are today, is because of zeiss and zeiss alone.
zeiss nowadays pours all their money into semiconductors, microscopes, medical and dental equipment and industrial equipment (measurment devices, machines, etc) zeiss is like the biggest name in these 4 industries. if you though zeiss was a big name in photography, thats nothing compared to what they are in medical, dental, industrial and semiconductors... thats why they were able to carelessly ditch photography and cinema lenses without any fucks given

>>4188043
Zeiss rifle scopes have spent more time in germany than camera lenses

They simply have not given a fuck about cameras for decades. Those lens designs are ancient now and originated in what may as well have been a different company.

Zeiss and Sony have employed hundreds of thousands of people over the years and legal incarnations of each company

The sonnar was invented by Ludwig Bertele in 1929 and the Sony 55mm f1.8 sonnar was designed by Naoki Miyagawa in 2014. If modern zeiss was a magical influence it would not be 10 times better than the 50mm planar but hey, it is.

>>4188045
Zeiss rifle scopes are super popular in Europe. Its them and Leica, but Zeiss is generally seen as a step above. They're pretty expensive too, usually around €3k for a scope.

>>4187523
It wouldn't make a meaningful difference lol.
Distance to subject, focal length and aperture are the defining qualities there. Short of using an apodized lens there's not much that you could change keeping those the same.

>>4187544
Anon, the sea is there. The sea is always straight unless you have some lens distortion fuckery going on.
>inb4 muh flat earth

>>4188102
The look of the bokeh can actually differ dramatically between lenses even with all the superficial numbers staying the same, and using EFCS fucks with it further at high shutter speeds.

>>4188103
what do you mean the sea is always straight??? LOL there are literal waves going on shifting the sea constantly left and right and the earth always rotates at suuuuper high speed so the sea is always at an angle based on wind and waves

>>4188083
Friend from Poland just bought a thermal scope for 4,400 EUR... My first guess was Zeiss - and yes, yes it was Zeiss... I always wondered why are shitty microscopes, telescopes and rifle scopes so much more expensive than camera lenses but then I watched a video about the whole manufacturing process for these things and yeah... Now it makes sense. Especially for microscopes and telescopes. Apparently, elements in these need to be like 4-5 times more precise than those in camera lenses which makes sense but I never thought about it - I mean, it's a fucking microscope lol...

>>4188358
>elements in these need to be like 4-5 times more precise than those in camera lenses
Lies, if anything, they're less precise because they don't need aspherical elements to converge the image circle onto a flat plane.

>>4188360
i mean thats what the worker from zeiss factory said, its not me saying that. i dont know shit about this. dont hate on the messenger

>>4188360
>cANON post
>is wrong

>>4188364
It's because they're trying to sell their products, just like how every manufacturer's nitriding or Cerakote is somehow unique and different from their competitors.

>>4188365
Shove it, unless the microscope objective is a superachromat, it's no better than a common photographic lens.

>>4188360
>converge the image circle onto a flat plane
You only need to do that if you're using a camera, field curvature is usually more noticeable on non-camera optics.

>>4188414
That's what I said.

>>4181282
ftz + tamron 35/1.8
thats what I use on mine

>>4188472
Too heavy and bulky.

I have the Z5 with 50mm. Going hiking in Norway for 2 weeks soon. I want to bring one additional lens. Which one?

14-30mm f4?
24-105mm f4?
20mm f1.8?
35mm f2 apo-lanthar?

>>4188529
bro shut the fuck up with the ''too heavy'' and ''too big'' bullshit... the whole mirrorless camera thing was just one big marketing scam... the weight remained literally the same +/- 10-15 grams and unless you're a fucking ant or a bee, you won't notice the 10-20 grams of difference in weight. as for the size, its literally the fucking same shit as DSLRs were, at least in case of full frame sensor cameras. same. fucking. shit.

now all of a sudden, people get too butthurt about their new 35mm lens being ''too big'' or ''too heavy'' or both on their brand new mirrorless camera, even though their camera weighs the same and is the same size as their old DSLR model and the fucking lens for their new mirrorless camera is actually even heavier than the equivalent lens for their old DSLR... so suck it faggot and stop being a little bitch

>>4188691
24-105
anyone who says otherwise is fucking retarded...

would be better if you had a longer prime something like 90mm 100mm or 135mm, that way you could take you 35 or 50 and then a 90/100/135 but for tourist shit, hiking and similar, taking a 24-105 zoom is just much better. especially for hiking where you will get annoyed REAL QUICK when you realize you have to change lenses every 2 seconds. with a zoomie you just put the lens on your camera and shoot

>>4188691

20mm seems obvious addition to 50mm for nordic

>>4188691
the real answer: bring 24-120 and the 20, leave the 50 at home. 24-120 for everything, then 20 at night for astro

>>4188761
What the hell are you talking about? I'm saying the lens is too big. The Tamron 35 weighs like a kilogram (two freedom units). Add adapter on that. He could use a Voigtlander at 300 grams instead.

Anyway a Nikon Z5 is like half the size/weight of a D850.

>>4188763
>>4188765
>>4188771
Thanks guy. Maybe I should just bring my Canon R6 with the 24-105mm f4L instead then, rather than buying an additional 2 lenses for my Nikon. I also have a 16mm f2.8 for the Canon.

I love the IQ on the Nikon though.

>>4188789
Why do you own both systems? Might as well just sell your Canon gear and invest in a few lenses for your Z5.

>>4188800
The R6 is better.

>>4188691
Sony 20mm f1.8
Sony 85mm f1.8

>>4188800
I bought the Canon first. But got curious about Nikon because I didn't like the colors from my R6. Now after comparing both, the Nikon pictures looks much better.

I'm gonna sell the Canon but can't do it currently (don't have the boxes etc with me).

>>4188824
Are they really worth it over the native equivalent lenses tho? Since Nikon's 20 and 85 are among their best.

But good thing about Nikon is you can adapt E mount lenses.