What are some of the best a6000 vintage lens?

>>2945942
Sony E-mount wasn't around long enough to call the lenses vintage. Or are you Sonyfags so up your own arse to call the NEX lenses "vintage" already?
I know Sony tends to update it's line at least twice a year but this is ridiculous.

Nikkor glass is pretty nice. I had a whole bunch of vintage Nikkors and liked them. Even wide open they were impressive. Tamron and Tokina made a decent 17mm f3.5, I had a Soligor 17/4 if you can find one, they are very rare. Good sharp glass.

>>2945944
I'm referring to vintage lens that could be adapted to the E mouth through the use of a adapter.

>>2945947
Those are Nikon lenses, not A6000 lenses. OP strictly said A6000 vintage lenses.

>>2945948
Why not start a vintage lens thread? Why did you feel the need to specify the Sony A6000 in the OP?

>>2945949
>>2945948

>>2945949
I'm referring to vintage lens that can be adapted to the a6000. Also are there any good vintage primes under $50 that can be adapted to the a6000.

>>2945953
Then why didn't you just make a simple vintage lens thread? Why did you need to specify your camera in the OP, since most lens can be adapted to your camera? This only makes you a massive faggot and only faggots will reply to you seriously.
>Sugar !egyYvoBZV2
Yeah. What I said.

>>2945955
Because he is looking for 1st person experience with this specific camera you fucking autist.

>>2945955
>>2945951
>>2945949
>>2945944
Fuck off you fucking triggered idiot

File: image.jpg (128KB, 640x824px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 640x824px

Tfw I have that lens and used it before on my a6000
I have canon adapters, Olympus, Nikon, Minolta, m42, but I wanted an ever smaller set up so I'm investing in m39 glass right now.
Have a few Russian lenses on the way.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	824

This thread is bait
saged

>>2945971
Stop samefagging the thread
Are you this fucking mad somebody mentioned Sony?

>>2945953
> under $50
My idea: Don't. Shit is almost all horrid unsharp blurtastic consumer crap from the 80-90ties and before.

Pay a bit more and get something decent, modern or not.

>>2945975
Are you this mad somebody is pointing it out? Are you going to get reduced pesos for it?

>>2945979
>use Sony
>must be shill
Nice logic, are you this insecure about your own gear?
OP mentioned a6000 so people would know he shot APS and to save time if anybody asked him later in the thread, stop fucking shitting up the thread.

>>2945953
Pentax SMC-M 50mm f/2
Pentax SMC-M 50mm f/1.7
Pentax SMC-M 28mm f/2.8

There are also these really cool 25mm, 35mm, and 50mm C-mount lenses that you can find with adapters for Nex mount. They aren't vintage, but they're so poorly corrected that you'll think they are.

https://amzn.com/B00KWNA1VS

>>2945984
The 50mm F2 version is not very nice, stick to the 1.7 or 1.4. Both still soft wide open, but OK from 5.6 onwards.

The 28mm 2.8 is OK, but the F2 version has much better color rendering for some reason (then again that is not a 50$ lens anymore).

T. pentacksfag

>>2945984
Thanks Anon!

Voigtlander Ultron 40mm F2.0 SL I
Important is that it is SL I and not II
M42
Focal reducer if possible.
Reaaaaaally creamy bokeh if that's your thing.

>>2945977
why pay more, it's only for a piece of shit Sony

>>2946035
It has a modern exmor sensor

>>2946043
What good is a sensor without lenses?

File: image.gif (665KB, 1264x1580px) Image search: [Google]

665KB, 1264x1580px

>>2946052
Are you this low on ammo or do you genuinely not understand what adapting is?
You do know that the main reason people buy sonys is to adapt other lenses, right?

>>2945967
>>2945983
op mentioned the a6000 because thats what he's probably currently shooting with but still wants the hipster feels of his shitty 80s film camera.

I know this because I was once one of those people )': plz don't be that kind of person op

>>2946598
>Uses legacy lenses
>must be hipster
Hello r/Photography

I'm new, just got an a6000

What exactly do you lose by using an adapter for a lens? Is it just the autofocus or do you need to turn a ring to set aperture? I'm assuming you lose EXIF and all electronic shit, but are there any other drawbacks to it?

File: 1476497070961.jpg (2MB, 2300x1529px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2300x1529px

Fuck any camera made by Sony Olypus or fucking fujifilm

You fucking hipster faggot morons need to fuck off your your shit cameras

Or buy a Good camera made my Canon or maybe nikon

Fuck you the a6000 especially is the worst camera ever invented , and has a garbage sensor with the worst shit fucking battery life ever, itls literally a hiptser teir camera for faggot nu-male cucks whp think their flickr will be the future of their photo career cause they use done specially """"mirrorless"""" build

Fuck you cucks canon is literally the only good option

Pic related

Shot it with my canin eos 5d m. IV

Best full frame camera ever

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5R
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.18
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	82 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:14 22:03:23
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	8.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2300
Image Height	1529
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2945942
olympus pen f vintage lenses.
like the radioactive 40mm f1.4.
it was made for half frame film, so no need for speedbooster.

otherwise any of the first party prime is good. just check for optical condition, canon fdn 50 mm 1.4 is nice, but i prefer 50 1.7 from minolta or pentax. check out zhongyi lens turbo ii.

>>2946859
worse bait in /p/ in years. noice

I found OP Pic related, a 28mm Tokina 2.8 FD, together with a 200mm 3.5 tokina, a 50mm 1.8 Canon and a 2x Tele Konverter.
I found them on my dad's attic. Sadly, he used em good and treated them Bad.
They are all Dusty as fuck inside and the 200mm Even has a slight scratch on the coating.
Where can I get such lenses refurbished and how much will it cost me. I would also get the aperture Rings declicked while at it.
Should I maybe do it myself?

>>2947293
ye, go for it.
The only thing that matters is the dust inside, and even then it may not.

>>2946025
- bokeh is NOT creamy
- SL I is not important, optics are the same
- it's fat with the adapter, and a quality focal reducer bumps the price to almost $1k which is insane
- why not just get nokton 40/1.4 instead

>>2947299
>buying a nu-male lens when you can adapt some vintage glass to your sony alpher camera
ha, I bet you don't even shoot in aperture priority.

>>2947303
numale camera needs numale lenses

I only shoot in sjw priority

>>2945969

I have been using m-mount on my a7ii. So small, but so pricey.

I have a 35-70mm f3.5 Macro MD coming tomorrow. Can't wait to give it a shot. Supposed to be fantastic.

>>2946859

The exif data made this post.

11/10, would lol again.

>>2945942
Is that a Vivitar 28mm f2.5? By chance I picked one of those up at a thrift store last week. Should've noticed the rust on the barrel before I parted with my lincoln.

Looking for a decent 200-300mm Prime, fully automatic. Ideally something for below 100 bucks on the market.
Currently using a tokina 200mm 3.5 but it has so many problems if not stepped down to at least 5.6

>>2945998
>>2945984
There is also the SMC-M 28mm f/3.5 it is somewhat slow but is inexpensive and has awesome color rendering. Great for daytime use ie landscapes

>>2948771
Basically what you're asking for is impossible to fulfill for $100. Also you have not stated what system you're on.

If you're on a dslr mount I reccommend the Sigma 300mm f/4 APO Tele Macro. Can be found around 180 dollars used. This is the only thing that gets anywhere close. The cannon version will have AF (which is insane for the price range) but also the aperture stuck open, which is ok because quality is already very good wide open but this is obviously limiting technically.

That's literally it. If you can bare a fully manual lens then your request is actually somewhat doable.

File: new-style-fujian-35mm-f1.6-C.jpg (60KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x640px

It's not technically vintage, but you can adapt a Fujian 35mm f/1.7 or f/1.6 C-mount lens.

Can be bought on Dinodirect or Aliexpress for around $20-25.

Buy the black one, silver has internal reflections (even the black one has on the mount, but you can screw it off and paint it black inside to reduce some).

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2062341@N22/pool/

Personally, I ordered the newer one in pic related that doesn't really seem to have any reviews yet.

>>2948839
Yeah, switched "automatic" and "manual" around in my head. Want a manual lens
The MD and M42 mounts seem to have quite a few of what I am looking for.
If I go down to 180mm the range gets even wider.
Anyone have any particular experiences?