Photos with the 40mm STM pls

File: image.jpg (120KB, 1000x620px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1000x620px

>>2752755

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	620
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: image.jpg (259KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 1000x666px

All for now. It's a good lens, the only one I have. No point getting it if you have a 35 or 50, rather buy a 40 and 105 or something.

Im off to bed, glhf

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	666
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 30VTriX07.jpg (189KB, 542x800px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 542x800px

>>2752755
Fuck off with your meme frog.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	542
Image Height	800

File: 30VTriX18.jpg (466KB, 1205x800px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1205x800px

>>2752755
It's designed for film shooters, hence the 52mm filter thread.
Digiplens need not apply.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Digital Photo Professional
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1205
Image Height	800

File: 23997863211_9b1d6c9d5c_b.jpg (406KB, 1024x696px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 1024x696px

40mm stm with some super low speed kodak 2254 is sharp as fug.

File: IMG_1520e-2.jpg (582KB, 1000x649px) Image search: [Google]

582KB, 1000x649px

Brilliant lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:11:06 20:34:44
Exposure Time	10 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2754459
this is the only pic of water moving that i have liked so far. good job dude

I'll second the FUCK OFF to the lowbrow meme faggot. Fucking hate the internet.

>>2754986
This hurts my eyes. that focus is shit.

File: IMG_1520e.jpg (965KB, 1415x1161px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 1415x1161px

>>2755003
I've noticed that a lot of the images I resized to 1000px a few years ago seem to look like that. Maybe something about sitting on a hard drive degrades jpeg quality? I don't know. The photo was actually totally in focus and very sharp before the resize.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2012:09:01 21:47:47
Exposure Time	10 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	Infinity
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2755003
Actually, nevermind. Just adjust your browser's magnification to 100%, or view the image in its own tab. It looks fine at 100px when you don't stretch it out.

>>2755005
compression and sampling settings?

>>2755006
*at 1000px

>>2755007
It's just a resize I did for the sake of posting on /p/. Like I said, view it at 100% and it looks fine. I'm sure it was bicubic compression, but honestly I didn't really give enough of a fuck to preserve details when I did it. With people on this board, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, but if you don't resize your images, then you are worse than Hitler.