Zenit Lenses are back

good fucking luck with that shallow dof and manual focus.

Had similar setup. Every time i shot stuff ended up having to shoot dozens more of the same because of a precaution to make sure subject is in focus. Ended up with gigabytes of uselesss photos that are out of focus.

>>2819673
>f/0.95
what in the christ fuck is the use for this

>>2819715
Aperture is the slightly more knowledgeable man's megapixels. Gotta get more so you know it's better (and therefore, you know you're better)

>>2819682
>not using a split ring focusing screen

Pleb

>>2819682
>>2819715

You do know you can step back enough that the DOF covers an entire person standing, right? you don't have to be at minimim focus distance so their face isn't half swimming in bokeh

Gear Thread

>>2819715
you stop it down to f4 and get better pix than a lens that only has largest aperture of f4

also hipsters and their bokeh

>>2819682
You need a better focusing screen, one that can actually resolve an aperture that big

otherwise it looks sharp in the viewfinder 10cm back and forth, while your dof is under 1cm

Anyone attempting hipster douche manual focus practices show have a good read about focusing screens

>meanwhile hipsters muh focus peaking evf
fuck off

>>2819772
>>2819772
No,you don't.

>>2819776
Not if you buy an used-to-be-soviet lens

>>2819777
Pick a current fast lens, and a current high quality slower lens at the same focal length, and show that the faster lens is better when it matches the slower lens.

Two examples would be very convincing.

>>2819772
>you stop it down to f4 and get better pix than a lens that only has largest aperture of f4

idiot

i do not want to upset your statements, just look at peak resolution numbers : http://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Nikon_D800E-814/launched-between-1987-and-2016#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo

You will easily see that only those fast lenses score better than slower counterparts if they have shitton of glass.

>>2819777
> used-to-be-soviet

These are new designs, not rebadged Soviet lenses.

Although with KMZ being decades behind on lens technology, I don't have high expectations.

>>2819673
All the pictures in that report are absolute garbage.

Did they send someone with nothing more than a phone camera to take pictures of camera equipment?

>Zenit was going to come back and take on Leica in the luxury camera market
AHAHAHAHAHA fucking russians not even once

File: 1287545838329.png (22KB, 381x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 381x400px

>>2819673
>f/0.95
But what about the T-Stop?

I'm dying to know the T-Stop of this lens and the Mitakon F0,95.
But DXO are being useless homos and only review other lenses than exactly these.

>>2819922
Someone on Reddit mentioned it's T/1.4.

>>2819772

I would wager the farm that my Canon 70-200 f4L IS wide open would comprehensively shit all over those Russian lenses at f8

Sweet I've always wanted a cheap .95 to mess around and bokehwhore with

>>2820123

NOT ENOUGH BOKEH!

>>2819922
>DXO are being useless homos and only review other lenses than exactly these.

Yeah, they should review more unreleased future lenses...

>>2819932
I've always been kinda curious -- on cameras with a significantly lower t-stop than maximum f-stop, do modern cameras calculate exposure using the t or f stop?

>>2820650

t-stop. they use the light hitting the sensor, not the aperture position

>>2819932
ah so it isnt t/1.4

File: Hp5Ae1028.jpg (294KB, 1657x700px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1657x700px

>>2820650
This is something that's made me wonder a bit as well. For any open aperture metering system, the correct shutter speed for a stopped down aperture is calculated logarithmically from how much light is getting onto the meter wide open.
The thing is, if your f/1.2 lense is only transmitting t/1.4 worth of light, then does that mean all of your shots are going to be overexposed by a third of a stop? (assuming that the actual light transmission falls into closer correlation with f-stop once your a few stops off wide open)
Apparently EF lenses contain electronic information for the camera that adds moderate ISO gain to reflect the increase in exposure people expect when going from f/1.4 to f/1.2, so you'd imagine they also calculate stopped down exposure accurately.
But for a mechanical camera I wonder if they're doing the same? For example the Ai tab on Nikkor lenses actually being slighty shorter than what would be logarithmically correct for f/1.2; long enough to tell the cam to show f/1.2 in the viewfinder, but correctly sized to enable the meter to perform stopped down exposure calculations accurately.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 550D
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.6
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	2015:06:14 17:14:07
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1657
Image Height	700
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Center-Weighted
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	Daylight
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	129

>>2820650
T stop.

>>2820123
>buying lenses for their sharpness
>not for their 3D nose pop capabilities

>>2821812
>Apparently EF lenses contain electronic information for the camera that adds moderate ISO gain
So what happens in the EOS film bodies?

>>2821831
Well the camera probably exposes the film correctly?
At the end of the day, we're talking about a third of a stop, max, for almost any of the lenses concerned.
Anybody so anally retentive as to care about that third of a stop ought to suffer through the stupidity of doing their own bloody testing to find out what their meters and lenses do.

C'mon! I previosly have two zenit's. As film cam it is medium - low quality. Same lenses was very diferent quality. I dont know maybe it was depend from vodka quantity in workers blood. This is soviet....