Post your grail piece

File: D3S_6237-1200.jpg (267KB, 1200x1439px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1200x1439px

Bought damaged 1.2L very cheap. Heavy, hard to use, hard to focus, IQ amazing. Would recommend.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>2802553
>wide angle
>doesn't look like a camera lens
>can be used as a shield if provoked
>can also be used as a sled for a quick escape

Great for street photography

>>2802565
amazing

>>2802557
What are you shotting it on?
What was the damage?
How cheap?
Bls post sample.

File: 3611782700_4233d160b0_b.jpg (341KB, 1024x931px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 1024x931px

i shill for this little cunt a lot here. the MIR 45mm f3.5. soft as a mothrfucker but has given me sweet stuff, its correction is linear distortion is p good.

>>2802599
So... it sucks, but not QUITE as badly as one might think? And for that, it's your "grail"? Really?

>>2802601

as i said, ive done stuff with it that has pleased me better than other, "better" stuff.

>>2802603
proof

>>2802611

you want proof on a subjective judgement?

File: sigma_dp2_merrill_shot_with_a_sigma_dp2_merrill_by_schwarzeis-d9ihmgv.jpg (2MB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1200px

>>2802553
>Post your grail piece

I'm a very simple man, everytime I open results I get with 50mm art, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

File: a380detail.jpg (140KB, 625x664px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 625x664px

Don't think I'd want it done out quite like this one but you get the idea

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	625
Image Height	470
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	2016:03:28 14:25:36
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	625
Image Height	664

what the fuck

this isnt even photography related

>>2802940
oops meant to be a reply to >>2802882

File: canon_ef11-24_f4l.jpg (508KB, 2400x1765px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 2400x1765px

easily

>>2802565
>stops bullets
great for war photography

>>2802557
>>2802584
Seconded

File: Image-1.jpg (44KB, 726x541px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 726x541px

[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
Image Width	726
Image Height	541

File: giant-1970-fisheye.jpg (419KB, 2383x1345px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 2383x1345px

>>2802553
Wow, so worth it

I don't understand this thread. Is this the best thing we own or the thing we most want to own?

>>2802553
>post your grail pieces
>posts a $150k lens that he doesn't/will never own
Nice work faggot

>>2802940
Some people might think that getting out into the world and actually taking photos is more important than sitting in a basement slobbering over another fucking lens

File: bae.jpg (134KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 960x960px

I already own it. In fact, I took this picture. I want for nothing, now.

>>2802956
Yeah, 'cause all those knights on quests in ancient tales already had a grail before they started, and picked up a bunch more pretty easily along the way.

>>2802949
Best $100,000 ever spent

>>2802826
I wanna exactly the same thing. I'm using rokkor 1.4 untill I can save money for this beauty...

File: he-chose-poorly.jpg (26KB, 565x405px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 565x405px

>>2802956
I don't think you understand what a "holy grail" is.

File: 645z.jpg (120KB, 1024x854px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x854px

>>2802553
because I just want it

>>2802965

keepin her shiny clean eh?

File: 1.jpg (139KB, 605x404px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 605x404px

y'all sleepin

[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 CS5 Macintosh
Photographer	Victoria Phipps
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	625
Image Height	417
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	2012:02:15 21:15:25
Exposure Time	1/3200 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	-1.7 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	605
Image Height	404
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2802697
Why is that lens xboxhueg?

>>2802965
How much did it cost you? I have a really beat 500C that is early production, and I'm wondering whether it's worth the cost to upgrade.

>tfw this was gonna be my introduction into MF
>bought the back
>bought a lens
>waited weeks for the back to arrive
>Camera didn't work when it used a back
>electronics dead
>Contax/Yashica no mo
>got refund and had to buy another system
All that camera does is remind me of the sheer disappointment I felt last year.

>>2803192
Because it has an enormous zoom range, a (relatively) fast aperture, and fantastic corrections for sharpness and aberrations, which all require a lot of elements and support structure.

>>2803051
I was a f-stop whore until I realized that there's not much difference between f/1.4 and f/1.1/1.2 - apart from light gathering ability, important when you shoot film. And shooting film is for fags, anyway.

>>2803219
Have you ever tried shooting film and developing yourself?

>>2803192
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-baLc-POBM

>>2803219
>apart from light gathering ability
Generally, an f/1.2 doesn't get more light than an f/1.4, due to the extra glass needed to get there. Some even have LESS light gathering abilities than their f/1.4 counterparts.

Even if they didn't, it would be less than 1/3rd of a single stop improvement. Not quite negligible, but... y'know.

>>2803305
Damn, are you sure about that? Cause if that's true then I think I need to rethink my investment plan

>>2803305
>LESS

wtf? A f/1.2 exposure is f/1.2

>>2803405
Do some googling about f stops vs t stops.

>>2803413
f/1.2 is not a measurement of light, it's a relationship between the focal length of the lens and the widest opening of the aperture.

T stops are the measurement of the amount of light that makes it through all those thick heavy glass elements. High quality glass is nearly perfectly transparent, but that "nearly" becomes a problem when you add more and more elements to correct for aberrations and fine details.

The more elements you have in your lens, the less light is going to make it through. So the big heavy monster f/1.2 lenses (like the 85 and the 50) aren't giving you the full light gathering advantage that you think they are.

Even if they were, it's only a half* stop


*=I said third stop earlier, but I was incorrect.

>>2803419
Great argument except that it's a generalisation that doesn't actually play out in real life.
Most classic 1.2's are simple double gauss designs.
Vignetting accounts for a lot more of the light loss than the amount of glass in the lense.
Nikkor 50/1.2 Ai-S - 7 elements
FD 50/1.2 L - 8 elements
Sigma 50/1.4 Art - 13 elements

File: Canon_EOS_1D_C_EOS_1D_C_4K_Cinema_855962.jpg (426KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 2000x2000px

I have one of these

File: Canon_24-70mm_f2.8_lens.jpg (278KB, 2600x1733px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 2600x1733px

>>2805840
And one of these

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 500D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Photographer	Daniel Dionne
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:10:07 17:18:11
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/12.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	46.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2600
Image Height	1733
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: EF_70-200mm_f2.8L_IS_II_USM_Default_tcm13-939763.jpg (32KB, 530x265px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 530x265px

>>2805841
And one of these. I've got 24-200 covered with possibly the best non-cinema lenses.

File: Canon-EF-1200mm-f5.6L-USM-lens-for-sale-550x289.png (90KB, 550x289px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 550x289px

>>2805843
But what I really want is one of these. Just so I can put my camera on it and pretend it's a laser cannon.

>>2805845
>$180,000
>used

just wow

with that kind of money you could go to university and learn how to design ghe damn thing yourself, then have enough left over to rent out a lab for a month and three assistants to build it. for new

>>2803419
I know that, what I meant was if you get a light meter reading that says f/1.2, iso 100 s 1/250, that's gonna be the correct exposure no matter the lens?

>>2806148
actually t/1.2 would be. different f1.2 lenses will show that image slightly brighter or darker at those settings.

File: CdqcPhfXIAACXBt.jpg (141KB, 1024x1816px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x1816px

Too bad I don't shoot portraits ever.

File: D3S_9055-1r5k.jpg (218KB, 600x1482px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 600x1482px

I'm more than happy with my reasonably sized and priced 60mm macro, but the 200mm is a monster.

>>2806148
When your light meter says "f/1.2" it doesn't know what lens you're using, so if you have a lens with poor transmission that's really an t/1.8 at f/1.2 (would be a very poor lens) then your image will be under-exposed if you went with the meter settings.

>>2806195
Light meters do take in account less than perfect transmission.
Because no f/1.2 lens is even close to t/1.2

It might even over expose if the lens is better than average.

>>2806204
So when the external meter says f/1.2, what does it actually mean? t/1.4?

>>2806207
Something like that, yes.

In practice they probably calibrate it by mounting a couple of lenses.

File: DSC04281.jpg (2MB, 6000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 6000x4000px

>>2802557
>>2802584

I shoot it on a Sony A7.
Focus ring is loose, slight fungus on front element which I cleaned off with some isopropyl alcohol and the mount has a tiny dent
I paid £150 ($210)
If you get the chance to try one, do it, as an every day lens, the Pentax SMC 85mm F2 is 99% as good for a lot, lot less money

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
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	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:04:01 22:02:49
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Brightness	-0.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Cloudy Weather
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2802553
I've used one of those once. It's annoying and disorientating.

>>2806214
No you haven't

>>2803419
This guy gets it.

It's a huge factor with rifle scopes.

File: Screenshot_20160402-000549~2.png (2MB, 1420x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1420x1600px

For fucks sake people, stop posting pictures of shit you already own. The whole point of a 'holy grail' is that you'll never have it.

Use your fucking imaginations.

File: Ae1Ortho2519.jpg (108KB, 527x800px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 527x800px

>>2806212
I'm the poster you replied to. I paid 950 AUD for mine, but it's a minter.
Is it sharp enough at 1.2 for the focus peaking to be accurate on the A7?
To be honest, the biggest problem I have with mine is the octagonal aperture, and how visible it is in the boke at f/2-4.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.0.8
Serial Number	1132529712
Lens Name	EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:22 09:39:00
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	527
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Partial
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Timed
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Fine
Self-Timer Length	10 sec
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Flash
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

File: D3R_1156-1200.jpg (365KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 1200x799px

>>2806304

>>2806111
Yeah, but then you can't brag that you were rich enough to buy it.

File: nikon1200-1700lens1.jpg (270KB, 619x429px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 619x429px

This one for me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (13.0 20120305.m.415 2012/03/05:21:00:00) (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	619
Image Height	429
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2012:04:23 22:50:21
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	619
Image Height	429

>>2806306
>some billionaire sheikh flies uncle Kenny to Dubai to play with his incredibly rare and expensive 13mm lens
>the best Kenny manages to do is take photos of his feet in the bathroom
This man is truly the patron saint of /p/

>>2806306
Wow, it almost renders things TOO rectilinear and flat. The left side metal thingy looks like it's a part of the ground, the perspective is so odd. Very interesting.

>>2802987
Did no-one explain that the quest could be avoided by saving up for a couple of months and then ordering a grail on amazon?

File: https%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2F6c8b1ffd81f48b9c1965875a588b54ab%2Ftumblr_ntd35dRBrD1rsb4fco1_1280.jpg (629KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

629KB, 1280x853px

My holy grail is sweet release from my mortal torment

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.3 (Windows)
Photographer	Ben Orlansky
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:02:23 01:03:59

>>2806292
you did well to find one in good condition, they are often abused by professionals and end up like mine.
The focus peaking is accurate when set to 'high', but I don't use it, just the in viewfinder magnification.
I agree with the octagonal aperture problem. I either use mine wide open at 1.2, or stepped down to F8 for a landscape shot.
Another issue was the cost of a high quality ND filter for such a big diameter - even on ISO 100 I can't use it at 1.2 outdoors on even a slightly sunny day