>legendary I hope it fucking is

>>2797271
You bought an slow, old 2x standard zoom. It is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less. Hopefully it's what you wanted.

If you were under the impression that it would make your pictures magically better, you were wrong. It's probably a decent lens, though.

Enjoy.

>>2797271
>checks completed listings
Holy mother of god, you paid $220 for a manual focus f/3.5 zoom from the 80's?!
Tell us what other /p/ memes you bit hard for?

File: 48_n.jpg (88KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x640px

I got one of these on a £25 X300 I bought. I binned it and got the 1:1.7 for £12.

File: Screenshot_2016-03-20-17-40-45.png (522KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1080x1920px

Bottom is OP's lens, based on the title. Top is some other cuck's lens. You paid $80 more.

Yours must be legendaryer than the other legendary one.

>this thread

fucking kek

File: IMG_9089.jpg (158KB, 1166x800px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1166x800px

>>2797439
>>2797271
Post legendary lenses in this thread.
>L E G E N D A R Y
>E
>G
>E
>N
>D
>A
>R
>Y

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: IMG_9098.jpg (140KB, 634x800px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 634x800px

>>2797456
>tfw holy trinity

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	634
Image Height	800

>>2797439
three versions of the lens were made, the first two sucked but the third is what he paid for, he did his research

>>2797271
>>2797339
op reporting in, only paid 120 :^)

>>2797628

You got ripped off. :^)

>>2797637
like i care :^)

>>2797271
What is good about this lens? Has it got a noice character or something?

>>2797673
It's got a S T O R Y

>>2797673
this is the third, best and final version of the three minolta md lens in its set. its just a super solid 35-70 for minolta mount cameras, they even did a collab with leica, just use google m8

>>2797667

You literally made a thread for the express purpose of showing you care.

>>2797696
yes i care about the lens not the money it cost me. whats your point?

>>2797680
So did panasonic

File: konica_hexanon_40.jpg (27KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x500px

>>2797456
Who /legendary/ here?

Feels good man

>>2797894
good luck finding a good copy.

File: IMG_20160321_145850.jpg (3MB, 4000x2992px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x2992px

>>2797628
I paid 30, you fucked up

>>2797939
You also bought the second one of the three which is a significant downgrade from the third n final version of this lens, yours maybe worth 30 but op's is a different story, use google before you call people out on something you obviously don't know about, it took me ten minutes to find all the info regarding these lenses. Do you feel of some importance since your superior shit glass was only 30 bucks?

>>2797939
Whilest using a shitty xd5 btw

What's so good about it? I have one but I'll sell it if plebs will pay over $100 for it!

>>2798036

Somebody on some blog somewhere said it was good.

>>2798049
this is why my $10 pawn rokkkor 45 is now going for $40+ and slowly rising, found it for $20 on ebay when i bought it.

most sold over the last weekend for $45~
a lecia screw adapted one sold for $125

fucking meme magic is real guys

>>2797908
I have one. Paid $50.

>>2798019
Why so triggered, anon?

>>2798049
>want to sell lens
>no interest
>write article about 5 best vintage lens bargains
>watch as people start bidding wars for my shit
I just wish people would stop writing fucking articles about the "best vintage cameras" and "lens bargains".