>>4244802
>buying japshit
at least buy a superior Meyer-Optik-Görlitz

>>4244802
If you want sharpness why are you stupid enough to use vintage? New lens are even better

>>4244836
You're sold the idea of that, but it comes at the cost of low contrast levels, resulting in a flat-looking image

>>4244866
I can't speak to every single comparison, but with ~50mm M42 this is not true. These chink lenses are sharper, faster, and have more contrast. All that without dealing with gambling on fungus, damage, or focus ring issues. The so-called character, or defects, of old lenses is better left to filters.

File: _DSF5537 1.jpg (1.72 MB, 1800x1200)

1.72 MB JPG

>>4244802
im fine with my lenses

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T10
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-3.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.00 mm
Image Width	1800
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4244802
>not shooting superior Yashica / Contax

>>4244866
There are zero superior older lens. You cannot name one. Poorfags like you with out of focus pics will cope with your $10 lens with characteristic damage.

>>4244802
>X lens is always better than Y lens
NPC take. You have to test the specific lenses in question to find the better one. Sometimes literally the exact lens you will use because of copy variation in manufacturing.

>>4244866
>sharper lens is lower contrast
Sharpness is measured contrast. How can a lower contrast lens be sharper???

>>4244971
All old lenses are superior. New lenses have no soul.

>>4244982
Name one. You can't.

>>4244982
>20 years from now new lenses will have soul

>>4244997
Kino-Plasmat f/2

>>4244997
The original 60's Nikkor 50mm f/2 produces better looking images than virtually any modern lens.

Falling for the meme of "new lenses" was the most expensive mistake of my photography life. AF is the only thing they can offer and that's only useful for certain situations.

>>4245000
Stop reading yannick khongs blog. He’s full of shit and very very confused.

File: Gili_Air_003.jpg (835 KB, 1200x800)

835 KB JPG

I shoot film so it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

MFT charts are for nerdz

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Fuji Work Record OP
Camera Model	Fuji Provia 100F
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2018:10:08 22:17:15
Exposure Time	1/13 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	-3.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4245001
I have no idea who the fuck that is, I'm going strictly by personal experience.

The original Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lens. The glass is just lovely. The NOCT 1.2 is of course much better, but generally unattainable by the average hobbyist.

>>4244997
Micro-Nikkor AF 200mm F4 D (there's a reason they have never made a newer version of it)

>>4245000
Like any situation where you'd rather have it follow focus for you? Vintage lens are alright if you do zone focus only, but if you have life going on around you, you'll want a real lens. If you really want a $50-$70 1.8 75mm equivalent lens that badly ok I guess

File: t_615_leica.jpg (13 KB, 379x283)

13 KB JPG

>>4244971
spoken like someone who can't afford superior lenses

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	ACDSee Pro 5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2022:03:11 12:48:43
Image Width	379
Image Height	283

>>4244997
Anyone that responds to low effort posts like this have already lost. You don't need to prove shit. Let these miserable fucks delude themselves with technical perfection while they lose sight of what appeals to human nature.

>>4245061
You have zero self awareness.

>im not an autistic soulless gearfag because the gear i think is better because of techno-magic is old/cheap.
you are an autistic soulless gearfag. if there was a real thing here, lens designers would have written an equation for it.

>>4245053
There are times when that is really important, mostly if you work professionally.

But as a long-term hobbyist who gets hired now and then, I shoot surfers fully manual focus with a 500mm lens, and get plenty of great shots.

>>4245059
This.

I threw a 50 summilux on my z6ii and holy shit the colors were insane without any edits on the raws. Never seen any rendering like that with the supposedly amazing z lenses. I use the summilux on an m6 but it’s making me consider getting a m10r or m11 when my company RSUs vest next month.

>>4244802
Because I am not poor and can afford RF.

File: imgp5095.jpg (467 KB, 1824x1216)

467 KB JPG

I took this pic with a 50 mm M42 Pentax lens, it's not very sharp but I can't afford a better one

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX Corporation
Camera Model	PENTAX K10D
Camera Software	K10D Ver 1.31
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2022:11:08 18:30:38
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1824
Image Height	1216
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4245059
You couldn't. You have zero.

File: 7R308092.jpg (2.11 MB, 3000x2001)

2.11 MB JPG

>>4244802
My new, sharp, modern lens has "3d pop" and "soul"

What now?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2001
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	4.4 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	4048
Image Height	2700
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4245435
stop fucking dogs

File: 7R306840.jpg (1.86 MB, 2001x3000)

1.86 MB JPG

>>4245441
Explain your schizophrenia.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2001
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	3.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	2700
Image Height	4048
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4244893
My 200 f2, 28f2zeiss are the case in point

>>4245435
doggy

>>4245451
Based Aposonnar enjoyer
Any test shots with it? I know it can fully cover a GFX sensor

File: file.jpg (4.83 MB, 6000x4000)

4.83 MB JPG

The favorite vintage lenses in my collection aren't all that sharp, but for inexplainable reasons I consistently like the images they put out.
But do have a freakishly sharp vintage zoom, which makes no sense at all as far as I can tell. It's sharper than most (all?) my vintage primes. The MD 35-70 3.5.
This is through a speed booster with no correction of any sort because I can't be arsed.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-H1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.5 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	38 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:10:13 15:14:53
Exposure Time	1/1100 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	4.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: file.jpg (1.28 MB, 2198x2748)

1.28 MB JPG

>>4245568
tight crop of a wide open shot

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.5 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:10:25 07:16:27
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	3.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4245568
amazing sharpness from a vintage zoom lens! great photo as well.

>>4245435
should've used it for this photo

File: PA103355small - Copy.jpg (1.99 MB, 3000x2315)

1.99 MB JPG

>>4244802
I shoot some older OM mount lenses
I have this yellow soligor something or other that makes my eyes feel funny when i look at for two long.
It's kind of a shit lens too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	16730
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2023:10:13 22:53:10
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/0.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	75.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5822
Image Height	4494
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None

>>4245435
But then where’s your excuse to buy vintage lenses?

File: 7R307606.jpg (2.33 MB, 3000x2001)

2.33 MB JPG

>>4245612
I have an OM Zuiko 135mm f2.8 (<-), 28mm f2.8, and 50mm f1.4

The shittier coatings fuck with colors a bit more, really encourage you to avoid backlit situations, and there's more sharpness falloff away from the center but that's it for vintage lenses. Anyone telling you about magical life reproduction 3d pop sovl rendering is nuts. Maybe they mistook shooting negligently due to improved flare resistance for a problem with low contrast. A lot of modern lenses will barely flare at all so you can fail to notice the loss of contrast at first. the sony 85mm f1.4 gm is notorious for this iirc. Just before you see ghosting, it starts looking a little flat.

>>4245568
The OM 35-70 f3.6 is supposed to be like that and the minolta AF 35-70 f4 was pretty ok too. It must be an easy zoom range to design for.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2001
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Brightness	-1.5 EV
Exposure Bias	-1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Image Width	4048
Image Height	2700
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4245634
>posts a photo with superior 3d pop, admits to being blind

>>4244974
>Sharpness is measured contrast
are you actually retarded or are you just trolling for the lols?

if sharpness was measured contrast, then cooke, panavision, zeiss, nikon, leica, hassy and other worlds best camera lens manufacturers, wouldnt design their lenses around the same fucking thing, they would instead all chase sharpness and resolutions first and everything else second. but guess what? they arent. because sharpness doesnt mean shit. sharpness and resolution come after. for example, zeiss spent just over 1.02 BILLION (not million, BILLION) euro just for research and design of Otus lenses, which were the first (and still to this day the only) full frame lenses ever, to allow small FF sensors to closely replicate medium format tonal reproduction. cooke, panavision, hasselblad and co., are the same way. so again, they spent OVER A BILLION FUCKING EURO on research and design, just to replicate the medium format look. sharpness wasnt even their priority and yet Otus 50 and 100 are still to this day the sharpest full frame lenses ever made, in fact, the lenses are so sharp that they even beat PhaseOnes lenses that were priority DESIGNED to be super sharp and have a huge image circle.

anway, yeah... to put that into perspective, manufacturers like canon, nikon, sony and others in the same boat, only invest 8 digit sums - and thats lower end 8 digits, usually around 15M or even lower for 3rd party manufacturers, could be slightly less could be slightly more, with exceptions of course but NEVER 9 digit sums, let alone over a BILLION.

so yeah... sharpness doesnt mean shit and no sharpness isnt measured contrast.

File: fix.jpg (1.59 MB, 3198x1374)

1.59 MB JPG

>>4245568
i like this type of composition more

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4245924
Tonal reproduction is a subtle non issue and it’s only seen lacking on old SLR shit and zooms

>>4245634
>>4245435
This is a weird example of an old lens having worse tonality. Is zucko glass garbage?

File: non issue.jpg (94 KB, 1048x1318)

94 KB JPG

>>4245928
ah... ok. contrast, proper tonality and proper saturation are a subtle non issue... got it... thanks.

>>4245924
>scheisschizo at it again

File: 563396221959614d9ef9a7e4c(...).jpg (126 KB, 1185x670)

126 KB JPG

>>4245931
>Take a picture
>assrape it in photosop
Lenses?

Most primes made for the big 4 of consumer MILCs and rangefinders today do not have a problem with tonality. Sometimes, there's a stinker, usually a fast highly corrected lens that renders a little flatter than older designs.

And nikkor S lenses. Ugliest fucking rendering ever.

>>4245926
I see where you're coming from, but I like the people there, seeing them enjoying all this beauty makes it all feel a bit more alive for me.

>>4245943
>Take a picture
>assrape it in photosop
It could still be assraped in photoshop, but if you look closely, those are two different photos - look at the hands. So possible that it was taken with a different lens, maybe some weird double camera setup. I doubt Zeiss would straight fake these, comparisons desu, people would sue.

>>4244802
If you said MD glass I would agree.
But you didn't.

File: DSC_6716.jpg (2.73 MB, 6048x4024)

2.73 MB JPG

>>4244802
I have some soviet M39 screw mount 50mm f/2 jupiter 8 lens. It looks like someone put vaseline on the front element lol
vintage lenses are cope for poor people or people who can't find a proper hobby

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	320
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Image Width	6048
Image Height	4024
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_7652.jpg (1.25 MB, 1523x2048)

1.25 MB JPG

>>4245435
based dog fucker

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	8000
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Image Width	1523
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_0370.jpg (4.25 MB, 4024x5030)

4.25 MB JPG

>>4245574
based goat fucker

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	5600
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	12.50 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	600.00 mm
Image Width	4024
Image Height	5030
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSC_7438.jpg (218 KB, 2000x1331)

218 KB JPG

> Not liking vintage glass
Some people have no culture

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	780
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	200 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:10:26 22:46:33
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4245924
Only good lens companies do contrast, and the good vintage ones had good contrast.

>>4244971

Norita Kogaku has entered the chat

>>4246085
Looks blurry and bad https://emulsive.org/reviews/camera-reviews/norita-66-system-review-pleasure-and-pain-from-my-need-for-speed#

File: file.jpg (765 KB, 1905x2857)

765 KB JPG

>>4245976
Can never have enough goat-bros. Here is one more - as befitting the thread, shot with an old Soviet Jupiter 85mm f2, on a shitty chinese speed booster before I got a real one. Not as sharp as the Minolta zoom, but a fun lens nonetheless. I might have missed focus here.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.5 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:10:26 21:44:35
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	2.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4245973
Helps if you hit focus

>>4246164
It is focused, don't you feel stupid

>>4246262
No I feel like I'm talking to someone who doesn't know how to operate a camera

>>4246164
he hit focus on the Zenit 3M logo, helps if you consider not everything is center framed.

>>4246280
>samefags and can't see where it's actually focuses
this guy man

>>4246268
That's vintage lens for you

>>4245924
well technically youre both right because sharpness in digital imagery does affect contrast but only to a level not visible to the human eye, so you are both kida right.

>>4245942
>>4245943
fyi that image is old and it is from the official company webpage and the other lens that was used for comparison was (apparently) the best canon lens (at the time) and its not just colors. colors can be fixed in post, nobody nowadays cares about colors that much. its the difference in detail in shadows and highlights and the smoothness of tonality, none of which can be fixed in post. thats what youre paying extra for in glass like hasselblad or whatever else in that ballpark

>>4246023
its just a matter of money and business side of things. just like >>4245924 mentioned, you can take a single quick look at how much manufacturers invest into design and research departments when making new lenses and you will immediately know which brands make shit glass and are in it only for the money (which is 90% of them sadly) and which don't/aren't

>>4246392
>Just like I said
Stop samefagging yourself. Everyone including Zeiss talked about the otus sharpness you retard.

File: 1.png (424 KB, 3735x1812)

424 KB PNG

>>4246408
>be me
>8PM
>at work
>reply to some comments
>''huurrrdurrrr!!!1! samefag!!11!!!!''
because i have nothing else to do but to reply to my own comments you fucking idiot... go educate yourself, youre making a fool out of yourself, with nothing other than pointless camera lens manufacturing history. takes like 30 minutes to get a grasp of whats been going on from 1800's to early 2000's. reading is not that hard, even for a retard like yourself. just do it.

>>4244802
I've got an smc takumar 50mm f1.4 (got from a goodwill)
would it be worth getting a converter for it?

File: 336056576_624789792992219(...).jpg (422 KB, 2048x1542)

422 KB JPG

>>4246090

Not that Noritar, the 17/4

But I almost forgot, Angenieux has also entered the chat.

>>4246527
adapters are cheap, might a well give it a try

>>4245002
hey i live there!

File: A7R06313.jpg (406 KB, 2048x1414)

406 KB JPG

Simple rules for getting great results from old lenses:
>technique trumps technology - using trash well will always yield a better result than sloppy handling of fancy shit
>all real macro lenses are very sharp
>all 50mms are sharp stopped down
>only slow wide-angles every get really sharp, and only stopped down
>almost all vintage teles are awful when shot against the light, and only get "digital-sharp" from f/5.6, and even then will have ca's
>famous exotic ones are the exception, but even then will still be obviously flawed when shot wide open or against the light, and will only really impress you closed down a stop
>seriously, non-normal lenses only got good from the late 80's; modernish kit zooms will absolutely yeet old primes at wide and tele focal lengths

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2022:01:22 11:25:53
Exposure Time	1/3 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-5.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1414
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4248354
>technique trumps technology - using trash well will always yield a better result than sloppy handling of fancy shit
I made a thread centered around this concept and people got mad lol

File: A7R09065mini.jpg (4.46 MB, 7952x5304)

4.46 MB JPG

>>4248354
this was a 55/3.5 micro-nikkor, they went on sale in 1969 and stopped production in '79, that means the actual lense I used must be at least twice as old as most of the people reading this thread, and it still out-resolves a 42mp sensor

Pic related is another example from a Konica 50/1.4, shot closed down to f/11 or f/16. No lense correction, even for CA, needed. Ignoring the dogshit jpg compression to get the filesize under 5mb you can see it's at least a match for the sensor

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-3.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	7952
Image Height	5304
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: A7R06476.jpg (940 KB, 1366x2048)

940 KB JPG

>>4248356
People hate to be told that they're the problem.
But this is a bit of a classic overachiever, the Nikkor 80-200/4.5, and honestly it demonstrates both points about technique, but newer shit just being better. It is really quite sharp in the centre in this wide open shot (I think at 85mm) but it is still visibly flawed towards the outside of the frame even at a normal res. Shooting this at f/11 would get a sharp frame, but shooting an EF 75-300mm with af, for $80, would still demolish it. Shooting an IS 70-300mm version for another $60 would just be so much better, as well as both wider, longer and lighter, and with IS you could handhold it too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2022:01:21 18:30:53
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Brightness	1.8 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1366
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: IMG_98546Dinosaur.jpg (689 KB, 1620x1080)

689 KB JPG

>>4248368
Here is the trash EF 75-300, btw.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Lens Size	75.00 - 300.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.7
Lens Name	EF75-300mm f/4-5.6
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2019:03:27 06:46:14
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	190.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1620
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Av-Priority
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	256

>>4248368
Nice shot. Do you think maybe the lens would perform better on film? I mean corner softness can sometimes be a result of field curvature, although on the other hand a telephoto like that should have very little of it.
>>4248371
Is it a bit swirly or is that just the shape of the things behind the plane of focus?

File: A7R06290RawEdit.jpg (1.34 MB, 1366x2048)

1.34 MB JPG

>>4244802
>And don't get me started on FD lenses
and here is you looking retarded, with one of the cheapest FD lenses out there, the 35/2.8.
Actually one of the sharpest lenses I own, and kind of makes a lie of my story about vintage wideangles sucking (but 35mm ain't that wide and f/2.8 isn't that fast)
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-canon-new-fd-35mm-12-8/

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/10 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-1.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1366
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: ef_75-300_4-56_iii_75_mtf(...).jpg (14 KB, 233x237)

14 KB JPG

>>4248374
both of these lenses exhibit field curvature towards the camera the the edges, you can see it in the undergrowth in the nikkor shot, and really plainly in the woodchips on the canon shot.
>bit swirly
that's called coma, and is the result of the deviation between the sagittal and tangential mtf curves increasing as you move away from the centre of the frame (the blue and black lines)

File: ef_75-300_4-56_iii_300_mt(...).jpg (15 KB, 233x237)

15 KB JPG

>>4248377
sorry, meant to post the 300mm one, at 75mm they actually converge

>>4248377
Some lenses without swirl coma a lot though, I see it with the stars. I think they're related but different phenomena.

Sharpness is a bourgeoisie concept

>>4248377
coma is an aberration of point light sources
the swirl comes from mechanical / optical vignetting

>>4248377
>>4248378
all that shit is useless when you adapt these ancient lenses to modern mirrorless cameras.
you get massive vignette since they're made for larger flange distances.

if you somehow find someone that is selling them for cheap, they're ok buy, but whole ebay and facefuck are full of overpriced lenses that scamers are offloading, so there's no point in them at all

>>4249873
The adapter adds the missing flange distance genius.

>>4245568
I'm in awe
How did you get it this sharp?
I even thought my SIGMA Art was sharp but damn...
Does that lens have autofocus?
Would it go well with my Canon 90D?

File: 1699137938599.jpg (462 KB, 6016x4016)

462 KB JPG

Hmm, vintage flare.

>>4249876
Lenses are made for a specific flange distance. Sharp all around lens on dslr body will exhibit soft corners on milc body.

>>4249916
Now measure the flange distance with an adapter.

What you’re talking about only happens with thick sensor stacks ie sony canon mft

Nikon and panaleica use thin stacks

>>4244802
While there are lots of good vintage prime lenses out there. You can definitely get good results, even on high res FF sensors. Vintage lens almost always have really bad LoCA, which is hard to fix in post.
The other issue with using vintage lenses is that the condition affects the IQ pretty drastically. So finding one in top mint++++++ is basically essential to getting good results.

>>4244971
The bokina

>>4244998
That's because twenty years from now new lenses will be more souless than todays.

>>4249882
I didn't do anything. The lens is simply this sharp, especially near 35mm. This lens was famous for its remarkable sharpness back in the day, and Leica even licensed the original late-70s version for a while. It doesn't have autofocus at all, but on the other hand it's extremely compact.
MD lenses do not adapt to EF well at all, and even if they did, this would be a little tight in a zoom. Plus your 90D is unlikely to have a focusing screen that's great with manual focus. Playing around with vintage lenses is really more for mirrorless people in this day and age.

File: file.jpg (323 KB, 1600x1561)

323 KB JPG

>>4249873
Cheap vintage lenses are great for people who don't stress too much about raw IQ, and like to experiment with different glass without spending a ton of money. I think they're fun. I don't take any of this too seriously.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 7.2 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2018:02:19 19:39:52
Exposure Time	1/750 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	3.2 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	12.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: file.jpg (1.95 MB, 1080x1620)

1.95 MB JPG

I personally think that chasing sharpness or IQ in vintage lenses is a mistake altogether. Of course modern lenses are going to completely blow old ones out of the water, and they have autofocus, etc. But that's not really the point.
Really, whenever I look back over thousands of photos I've taken with my vintage lenses I'm almost never disappointed with sharpness. I fuck up just about everything else all the time, but shit is usually sharp enough for me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Macintosh)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:02 17:21:18
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/1.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	4.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: DSCF2997.jpg (2.78 MB, 4000x3000)

2.78 MB JPG

>>4250337
>>4250328
real and true. i find lo-fi pictures quite charming most of the time. vignette is unironically SOUL

having said that, here's a jupiter 37a on 44x33 sensor showing no noticeable vignette! neat

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.34
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	107 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:11:09 00:51:01
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	2.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	OK
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

File: DSCF2982.jpg (1.35 MB, 3000x4000)

1.35 MB JPG

no idea how sharp it is but i think it looks great. i'm not good at focusing it yet

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.34
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	107 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:11:09 00:01:10
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	1/10 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	OK
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

File: A7R08456DylanVisitOM20Super100.jpg (1.29 MB, 1406x2048)

1.29 MB JPG

>>4250337
pls see sharp old lenses here
>>4251286

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-9.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1406
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4245568
>>4249882
>>4250323
lens is from a time when they did blood sacrifices
people these days don't deserve hence no more blood sacrifices

>>4248357
>dogshit jpg compression to get the filesize under 5mb
Why not resize it then. It's a great picture but you're ruining it with lossy compression