>Sony fags need to use adapters to actually have decent lenses

File: DSC07396.jpg (1MB, 1000x1519px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1519px

>>2949639
DENOISE

[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/5.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	69 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:19 21:05:46
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Brightness	3.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	46.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1519
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2949640
That looks like a jpeg that was upscaled and saved using windows XP

>>2949642

Why do you think I made this thread?

>>2949639
Any. Only difference is minimal.
If you must know, Jupiter 8.
I have a Canon FD 50mm 1.8. Shoddily built, plastic almost everywhere, only 5 blades. Makes beautiful pictures.
Just stick to well known brands. don't go for shit like Hanimex or Vivitar or Practica

>>2949644
Actually old Vivitar can occasionally be pretty good if you do your research first. Sometimes it's rebranded Kiron, Tokina, or other decent glass.

http://forum.mflenses.com/identifying-vivitar-rebranded-manual-focus-lenses-t46116.html

File: 20561314424_723507b526_b.jpg (242KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 667x1000px

My advice is to look at the whole range of lenses of a particular mount. Find a mount that has good options for the focal lengths you'll eventually want. This way you'll hopefully only need to buy/fuck with one adapter which makes life simpler.

I also shoot with the FD 50mm 1.8 (pic related) namely because I already had a few FD lenses prior to buying my A7. The FD range has lots of gems and the price has stayed relatively reasonable while other lens mounts seem to be appreciating in price now that mirrorless and adapting lenses has become popular.

My buddy has a 55mm (I think) Minolta mount that also takes beautiful photos.

>>2949649
This

I have two, one rebranded tokina lens
one that's complete and utter garbage

File: D3S_4595-oblique-1200.jpg (231KB, 1200x1142px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1200x1142px

>>2949639
>What's the best 50mm prime for mirrorless cameras?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: sony_sel55f18z_sonnar_t_fe_55mm_1008124.jpg (104KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1000x1000px

>>2949639
Actually, this Sony Zeiss 55mm.

You can drop the "for mirrorless". It's *the* best 50mm.

Admittedly, the Otus and Sigma Art and others are amazing glass too, but this one IMO wins overall.

> Inb4 55mm is not 50mm.
Even if you insist, it's not really changing much. The 50mm Loxia still is neat.

>>2949706
>55mm

you might as well buy a 200mm telephoto lens

File: 1.png (406KB, 570x3686px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 570x3686px

Sony is high performance.

>>2949706
There is a new F1.4 GM lens for E-mount which is even better than that lens.

>>2949710
> can't even tell if I am dealing with crazy, or a little joke

>>2949714
Try sorting by sharpness or rate things DXO doesn't take into account, such as the lens having AF or its weight (that Otus is 1kg, the Sony-Zeiss is 281g).

Sony Zeiss 55mm is the best ~50mm lens.

>>2949719
>Sony Zeiss 55mm is the best ~50mm lens.
No it's not.

When you adapt the Zeiss Otus to A7Rii, it will perform even better.
The new GM E-mount is also better.

>>2949706
sonnar
not even once

>>2949717
Hm. Cool. Didn't know it was better.

>>2949721
> When you adapt the Zeiss Otus to A7Rii, it will perform even better.
Still won't have AF or weigh 281grams - it's probably now over 1kg with the adapter, isn't it?

I'll still going to call it a win in general for the 55mm, even if in specific situations the Otus might be better.


The GM... yea, maybe? Still need to read reviews and maybe try it out before I'll adjust my opinion, though.

File: 50mm_summilux.jpg (33KB, 1200x470px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1200x470px

>>2949639

>>2949728
>The GM
They are both very high end lenses. But the 55mm is obviously better for the money and weight.

>>2949706
http://www.verybiglobo.com/sony-fe-55mm-f1-8-z-vs-canon-fd-50mm-f1-2-l/

>>2949730
if you don't need the extra stop the Summicron is the better choice for sharpness and contrast below f8, the differences even out above f8 or so

>>2949737
It gets very subjective. All are great performers, but the Summicron and Summilux have different looks, as do the ASPH and pre-ASPH versions of each.

I have a latest pre-ASPH Summilux that I chose because I think the ASPH looks a little too clinical. I also have a 1958 vintage Summircon that is beautiful on B&W film, but has neither the contrast or sharpness wide open for digital. I also had one of the new 50mm Summarits, which was also a spectacular lens, but didn't find it different enough from the lux to keep both.

>you will never forget that the Zeiss brand that is so respected once dropped the ball with 50mm 1.4 Planar C/Y
>even after using the C645 you can't respect nu-zeiss for that utter failure of engineering
>see that 80% of their digital E mount stuff is hilariously misguided
Contax come back ;_; pls

>>2949650
This can be a completely retarded way to do things.
My friend did the same as you, got only an FD adapter and only bought FD lenses. Complained that he couldn't get what he wanted when he could just buy an M42 or C/Y mount etc.

Boxing yourself in is silly. The FD prices have also definitely went up since mirrorless came along, the joke that is the 85mm 1.8 FD is ridiculously overpriced nowadays for what you get. I expect the poor Bronica range to get beaten the fuck up when Fuji's mirrorless MF camera comes out.
>>2949725
You, I like you.
>>2949714
Hilarious, the sad thing is that it's not even satire.

>>2949735
That one too says the Sony Zeiss is better, and it's "only" tested on a 24MP A7. That they are somewhat equal in sharpness is just that guy's subjective perception of some of his test shots.
Refer to DXO's measurements to see how it actually is on a 40-50MP+ sensor. The difference is huge.

You've got the Sigma Art though. Oh sure, it raises the Canon lens weight from ~600g to ~800g (both of which obviously a lot more than the Sony's pretty amazing ~300g), but it's cheaper than the Canon for a new lens with warranty, and better.

>>2949746
>I also have a 1958 vintage Summircon

I have a radioactive summicron and can pretty much attest to this statement. Though I do like the lenses look with colour film, I shoot a fare bit of NPS with it and have shot a few rolls of Provia.

Sony actually has
50mm F1.4 AF
55mm F1.8 AF
50mm F2.8 macro AF
50mm F1.8 AF

They don't need anymore here.

Then there's Zeiss Loxia and all the other 3rd party native E-mounts. It's cramped already, fuck off.

>>2949746 (correction)
Ah wait, DXO pulled up the EF, doesn't have the FD, not EF. Shit, I should check better.

Either way, I'm going with the assumption that Canon didn't make the EF "L" half as sharp as the older FD or anything remotely like that, so I doubt it'll stand up to the 55mm Sony Zeiss.

>>2949751
>DXO

OH BOY DID SOMEONE SAY IT.
D x O M A R K
x
O
M
A
R
K

stop you're gearfagging senpai or i'm going to boot you right of this highschool anime.

>>2949767
The only people who have something against comparisons and benchmarks are the ones who are at the bottom of them.

>>2949768
It can't be that I just can't be bothered with pointless gearfagging and LOOK AT MY CITATION arguments. It couldn't be that you're literally one step away from posting an MTF chart with semen all over it.

Either way dxo is made for people like yourself who only want to buy shit small format gear and feel good about your purchases. I-if you're going to be a pro, you better make sure you have the best gear ecks dee.

>>2949761
Yeah, I've been pretty happy with the way mine looks on Provia and E100S too. It doesn't cut it on the M9 though. But for film I would probably rate it as my favorite lens, especially B&W.

>>2949768
I don't mind comparisons that are actually that, i.e. that recognize different lenses produce different pictures and there's a huge amount of subjectivity in choosing what you like. Rankings and benchmarks are entirely different. Ranking lenses is blatant gearfaggotry.

>>2949768
Also you're expelled from school. Your character arc will now revolve around your delinquent life and how bored you are at not being at school while me and the other hot anime girls go on adventures and even a seasonal trip up the mountain.

I'm sure you're going to find a way to crash the trip though and we'll see how much we really appreciate you when you prove yourself to be the hero.

>>2949767
The individual measurements and smaller aggregate scores (sharpness among them) are good.

Sorry that I'll not put some Shinji's random opinion over measurements, Naruto-fampai.

File: NOT-EVEN-KEN-KUTARAGI-CAN-SAVE-YOU-FROM-THIS-BUTTBLASTING.jpg (297KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1000x1000px

/p/ OFFICIAL POWER RANKING LENS CHART DXO SPECIAL OAV BDRIP KEN ROCKWELL STYLED FROKNOWSPHOTO TOP 10 OUT OF 7 HISTORICALLY ACCURATE REVIEW LISTICLE

>1. Canon 50mm 1.8 s.s.c FD
>2. Yashica 50mm 1.7 ML
>3. Leica 50mm 0.95 Noctilux
>3. Canon 50mm 1.4 EF
>4. Canon 50mm 1.8 STM
>5. Nikon 50mm 1.4 G
>6-∞-1 Everything else
>7. Focusing past ∞ Zeiss and Sony lenses (excluding A mount)

>>2949777
get fucked kiddo, you think you hit the jackpot but really you just lost the game.

>>2949750
>This can be a completely retarded way to do things.

That's why I said it's worth looking forward. Sometimes winding up with multiple mounts is unavoidable. Maybe the FD range isn't a good choice for OP at all because they want an affordable 16mm fisheye or something.

Didn't even think about thr possible repercussions of that Fuji MF rig coming out. Fuck, I should buy whatever Bronica glass I want soon.

File: DSC02858.jpg (265KB, 1500x1000px)

265KB, 1500x1000px

>>2949751
>>2949735
I took a photo for you to see. FD 50L @ f/1.2.
It's a whole stop faster than the plastic chinese """zeiss""" too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:20 14:18:36
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2949774
Ranking are nothing more than comparisons based on said benchmarks.

>>2949774
> huge amount of subjectivity
Does not exist in the question whether a lens accurately can project what it's pointed at onto a sensor, and in what ways it can not.

You get a lot of really rather objective metrics.

And that plus ease of use concerns make a lens good or not for photography.

>>2949791
>I took a photo for you to see. FD 50L @ f/1.2.
Doesn't look horrid, but also doesn't look that good.

Can't tell from a JPEG miniature shot though. You could even mess up a 55mm FE like that.

> It's a whole stop faster
That, too, requires measurements. T-stoppage and sharpness at individual apertures (as well as how large the labelled apertures actually are) can be surprisingly much off what you'd expect.

Yea, sharpness is still important 'cause anyone can make a large aperture, the only difficulty involved is making light fall into the right places with a lens in between.

> plastic chinese """zeiss"""
If Anhui ChangGeng Optical Technology Company Limited made the best lens of suitably enhanced rock composites (so it has an amazingly well-suited set of properties like plastics do) over in Tuvalu, I'd still credit them for it and probably get the lens...

File: DSC02858.jpg (272KB, 1034x766px)

272KB, 1034x766px

>>2949807
Yep, it's pretty bad at 100%...
The actual flaws of this lense are minor spherochromatism, and quite strong coma, which of course goes away on stopping down.
In comparison to other vintage 50mm's it is simply dominant when it comes to contrast and resolution, even at 1.2, as compared to their 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8, etc.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:20 15:04:12
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1034
Image Height	766
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2949798
Right, and I am disputing the value of such things.

File: DSC02878.jpg (370KB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 1000x1500px

>>2949815
Also worth noting it doesn't benefit from baked in Sony RAW adjustments like the """zeiss""" does.
This is at f/2.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:20 15:49:17
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	3.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC02883.jpg (432KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1500x1000px

>>2949841
A lense that will really get the measurebators reaching for the kleenex though is the FDn 50/3.5 Macro.
This is wide open.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:20 16:19:16
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC02883.jpg (420KB, 1444x1074px)

420KB, 1444x1074px

>>2949857
And at 100%

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:20 16:24:39
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1444
Image Height	1074
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2949639
Sony 50mm 1.4 gm or sony zeiss 55mm 1.8 depending on your preferred style of bokeh, or your favourite leica 50.

>>2949706
Agreed, it's fucking gorgeous rendering gets me erry time.

>>2949717
It's a much more complicated design, it's sharper, vignettes less, but lacks the beautiful 3d pop of the 55.

>>2949721
>Dropping 4k on a non af lens
Seriously, who would ever choose that when you have fucking amazing af options too. The otus only makes sense for mirrored cameras, where you don't get the choice and inherent better image quality of a short flange distance.

>>2949725
That's right, you've not tried a sonnar design because there isn't one for your silly bulky camera.

>>2949841
Sony doesn't bake anything into their raws.


Fwiw, i own nikon, pentax, canon fd, chinon, minolta 50 1.4's and borrowed a sony 55, the sonys next on my buy list for lenses

File: rokinon_rn50m_e_50mm_f_1_2_aps_c_w_a_1185693.jpg (92KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1000x1000px

Samyang 50/1.2
You can fap on some overpriced shit, but this cutie just doing his job and doing well.

>>2949902
stop gearfagging and take some fucking photos you poorfag.

>>2949639
contax carl zeiss 50 1.7

File: 1475494065727.gif (269KB, 234x249px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 234x249px

>>2949939
my man

>>2949936
I take enough photos to be able to see the differences between different 50mm lenses. And have plenty of money.

Stay mad.

>>2949918
It's shit tho

>>2949706
it sucks. sold it early this year. well it certainly doesn't suck, it's a high end lens capable of producing perfectly good results just like a lot of lenses, but you get what you pay for. $700 for a zeiss is cheap and for a reason, it doesn't have that pop that even L zoom lenses have. and there is no way in fucking hell that lens beats the sigma art lenses, not a chance. the sigma art sucks because its af is one of the worst but for manual or live focus it produces gorgeous images - not even in the same league m8

>>2949961
The sigma art renders flatter than a double masectomy

>>2949973
sounds to me like you've owned the lens and decided it's shit simply because you're shit at the hobby. learn how to actually use it before gearfagging. the sigma art is almost otus quality

>>2949959
It's not about having money, it's about being a gigantic faggot on the internet and shitting up places with gearfaggotry.

>>2949691
Is this a leica modded contax g planar 45/2

>>2949639
Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f/1.8 ZA

File: 20130215DSC_6061.jpg (45KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x534px

>>2949973
both arts have an insane bite. flat my ARSE

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:

File: 30070857320_887fc5e38a_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

SONY LENSES SUCK

>>2950033
that tree looks a bit like my shit this morning

>>2950033
the fuck is that lens?

>>2950028
You don't understand lens rendering.
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop

>>2950040
>http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop
you're a fucking dick head for posting the first article on google you see when you search "3d pop". yes, modern lenses lost their 3d pop because of more elements used in the lenses however that's exactly what the even more modern high end lenses have resolved. the sigma does a perfect job of "3d pop", also check out the 35mm 1.4l II which is the lens used in >>2950033 and renders very similarly to the sigma. you are the one who doesn't understand lens rendering, or anything about lenses for that matter.

File: 26826154660_3ea2d7e44d_k.jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

>>2950040
this lens was made last year and is literally otus quality, find one lens except for 'perhaps' an otus that performs better than it.

>>2950011
No, it's a ZM Planar. One of the M-mount lenses Zeiss introduced with the Ikon rangefinder a few years back.

>>2950043
Are you putting that forward as an example of a good modern lens? Sure, it's not as flat as a lot of modern lenses, but that bokeh is horrendous.

>>2950050
it has literally smoother bokeh than the classic 35 1.4l, which is amazing, objectively. also that photographer sucks who took the photos and always tries to fix his highlights, hence the weird edges on the trees. you are talking out of your ass.

>>2950050
and "not as flat"? it's the least "flat" lens around. obviously you get what you pay for because it's a stupidly high price for a prime lens, but it renders very similarly to the 35 art which is very affordable just has shit auto focus.

>>2950053
>Canon sets the bar for bokeh

Jesus Christ, kids these days.

>>2950040
That article is crap. This is not how physics works.

File: 0a14c79b13a82100c90ba151e55a5ac2.jpg (212KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 640x480px

>>2949902
>That's right, you've not tried a sonnar design because there isn't one for your silly bulky camera.

Is that so? I'll stick to my superior Planar ZM for colour and 50s Summicron for B&W.

I like my lenses symmetrical

>>2950122
>doesn't even have a proper viewfinder
>That's a photo pulled off pinterest
>he doesn't even own his dream joke
>laughinggirls.jpeg

File: camera shelf.jpg (2MB, 1500x1000px)

2MB, 1500x1000px

>>2950157
you are right I don't own a M2 or sonnar and did pull the image off the interwebs. It was chosen to show the sonnar ZM.

pic. my camera shelf as it is right now

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6000
Camera Software	Capture One 9 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:20 12:08:46
Image Created	2016:10:20 12:08:46
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2949973
>tfw no 3D nose

File: 20160519-DSC05894.jpg (417KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 2048x1365px

>>2950122
>cost 1 grand
>1 meter minimum focusing
>""""""classic Zeiss design"""""" aka don't give a shit about update to modern standards
Bu-b-but, muh zeiss 3d color pop!

>meanwhile, the jupiter-3 is like 50 bucks
Does anyone else got the Zeiss ultron? I love this lens.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	david mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:15 18:53:27
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-0.6 EV
Exposure Bias	-1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2950033
Boo hoo, modern lenses have less optical distortions

>>2949767
>gets mad at DXO rankings in a thread about lens quality
>gets mad that Sony averages better DXO ranks for native lenses
Get fucked scrub

>>2950043
>>http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/10/4/the-flattening-of-modern-lenses-or-the-death-of-3d-pop

>Light is composed of different colors (wavelengths), each colors move at a different speed towards the sensor

Woah, I guess that means radio transmissions must be really slow.

>>2950217
I'm surprised you don't live in a late 90's high school with all that projecting you're doing.

>>2950481
No, I live in a world where photographers don't cry about their brand getting low DXO marks and just accept that some lenses are better quality you fucking idiot

>>2950484
I live in a world where if someone dislikes gearfaggotry then some gigantic faggot like yourself comes along and posts:

It's just because ur brand is bad xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Take your shitty arguments to >>>/dpreview/ in the future if you're not going to post some fucking photos.

>>2950487
> I live in a world where if someone dislikes gearfaggotry
There is where it falls apart already. Scroll up, read the OP.

Never mind you're in the wrong place in general. Maybe go somewhere where "artists' and not photographers / videographers are?

>>2950487
>It's just because ur brand is bad xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
>the OP started the thread literally saying that about Sony lenses
>anons rebuttal with DXO
>"Hurr durr DXO isn't real, you're gear fagging"
Is it only gear fagging when your favorite brand is at stake?

>>2950496
It's gearfagging all the time m8. My favourite brand was bought up over 10 years ago senpai. You may notice I don't mention brands, because I don't give a fuck about 'em like you. Probably because I'm not a gearfag desperately trying to justify my purchases.
>>2950493
Yeah, sorry. Entered the photography board. I'll go to /c/ for cameras or maybe /g/ for gear. Maybe you should ask hiroshimoot to make a camera gearfag board just for you to circlejerk in, right?

>>2950518
>Gets called a gearfagging for justifying purchases with optical quality
In too deep

>>2950523
>trying to justify your purchases
What's it like being poor? Do you have to eat ramen and shit? Do you take photography work on for some pizza and a beer just to stave off the hunger?

>>2950518
> Yeah, sorry. Entered the photography board.
Exactly. And then in a thread discussing 50mm lenses.

> I'll go to /c/ for cameras or maybe /g/ for gear
These places don't exist as you think they do, but go right ahead.

Maybe in the time you take a break from /p/ using your power of imagination, you can pretend to be in a circle of artfags that will somehow not care about how gear performs despite using it all the time.

>>2950518
>implying professionals don't care about their tools.

>"hi I'm gordon fucking ramsey and today I'm going to be dicing chicken breast using the flat side of a fucking butter knife"

>"hey folks, bob Ross here, today we're going to create a lovely little scene using poster paints and a barbie doll with her hair cut short as a brush, why? Because I have crippling depression and hate my life."

>"mr pavarotti, the yak bak is ready for your next piece"

Get fucked kiddo, you're a poor, entry level hobbyist millenial. You're as irrelevant as people get.

>>2950526
>I buy lenses with good reviews, I must be poor
Okay, I'm so fucking poor, how dumb of me to NOT buy an inferior lens.

File: 1471905492154.jpg (77KB, 679x679px)

77KB, 679x679px

>>2950541
>>2950537
>>2950532
Hook.
Line.
Sinker.

At least you stopped arguing over lenses you sad bastards.

>>2950537
Yes, professionals do care about their tools but they dont argue with people over the internet about their tools or go on dxomark to pick what they rate as the best camera

If sony is so good why do most professionals still use canikon?

File: 3a5963a7fffc29689fc3315f6a125840.jpg (76KB, 650x592px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 650x592px

>>2949918
I'd rather buy a fucking zenit

>>2950582
>Implying Ford and Holden users don't chat shit about gear
>Implying antex and weller users don't chat shit about gear
>Implying there's any mechanic out there that won't bad mouth snap-on at any moment they can
>Implying PS and XBOX users don't chat shit about gear

You've never had a hobby before have you buddy.

>why do most professionals use Canikon

Sports - Because they don't buy their own equipment, and they're the only brands to make proper sports lenses

Wildlife - As above

Journalism - They don't

Fine Art - nope

Wedding - Because they're basic bitches

Are you aware of the price difference between Canon selling a white lens to a sports media company and to your average consumer? It kinda makes it impossible to go for any other brand.

>>2950601
>you've never had a hobby before have you buddy.

He was arguing for professionals, not hobbyists

I think you missed the point of my post because I'm trying to show that dude that professionals are professionals because they don't sit around bickering about gear all day

You're pretty much reinforcing what I'm trying to say to him that you don't need professional gear to be a hobbyist and that the reasons as to why most professionals use what gear they use isn't just because 'it scores the best on dxomark'

File: M50f1.4.jpg (37KB, 353x404px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 353x404px

pentax makes the best cheap 50mm lens

>>2950597
What a sonyfaggot.
SY
>exelent sharpness
>nice bokeh
>compact
Zenitar
>not even sharp
>ugly bokeh like all USSR tech
>heavy as your mother
GGWP, best sosony user ever.

>>2950582
>If sony is so good why do most professionals still use canikon?

1) Legacy, it is expensive to change systems. Most stick with the system they have weather they love it or hate it.

2) Rental Houses, depending on which system the local rental house has the most of, pros in that city will use that system.

3) Brand Awareness, Canon's white lenses are instantly recognizable as pro equipment, because 99.999% of people you encounter while shooting will never see your portfolio, it instantly says "professional". Also Pors are just as susceptible to advertisement as amateurs.

4) Pros don't use Canikon, serious studio shooters use Phase, and will shoot whatever DSLR is available from the rental house when shooting outside the studio.

5) a lot of the fine art guys I know are switching to the Pentax 645

>>2950648
Thanks for posting reasons so I didn't have to. Also I don't know if you're trying to prove me wrong or something but I'm just saying people don't use stuff just because its ranked high on dxomark

File: Planar.jpg (77KB, 700x364px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 700x364px

>>2949639
>What's the best 50mm prime for mirrorless cameras?

File: Quenchiest.png (430KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 720x480px

Since we're already here about vintage lenses, I have a question, following scenarion:
>have Lumix G7
>have the 25mm 1.7 panasonic lens
>get a Tokina FD 28mm 2.8 and adapt it
>make some test shots
>suddenly realize that most of my images are brighter than they should be
>compare the two lenses by setting camera to aperture priority and taking a picture with both lenses at same aperture
>at 2.8, the camera selects a 1/25s for the Tokina, but a 1/5s for the Panasonic
>Panasonic must be opened to 1.7 to achieve same shutter speed
>other testings are consistent with these results

WTF is happening here? am I missing something? I'm not using a speedbooster, so what is it?

>>2950958
That seems strange.
Assuming you're not a retard and the camera's not doing some weird auto iso auto hdr thing that turns off with manual lenses, the most likely explanation is that the tokina is so low in contrast wide open that the meter is fooled into underexposing. Try again with a lense hood and at around f8.

>>2950964
Nevermind, just realized I still had my CPL filter attached to the Panasonic.
I just could kick myself in the ass right now
Every time I shoot with the Pana I constantly consider and reconsider using the filter, "more natural colours, or one extra stop?"
and NOW I forget it.

>>2950974
you're using contrast detect af.
just get the cheaper pl filter.
no need for cpl.

>>2950982
Can't find them anywhere. Only find CPLs

>>2950665
>>2949730
>>2949706
SHIT
H
I
T

>>2951145
Did Sony assassinate your grandmother?

>>2951145
What you say when you realise you will never have the choice and quality sony offers.

we've got insane amount of sony spillover shills on /p/ these days

File: 1459480769598.jpg (14KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 228x221px

>>2950043
>muh bad things are actually good!!!!!!!!!

>>2950296
my fucking sides thanks for calling out the biggest dunning kruger thing on that worthless piece of fucking shit blog

>>2951566
I think we got an even higher spillover of people who hate Sony.

Back in 2014 it was different from now, there wasn't the same jealousy and hostility at that time.

>>2950296
Jesus Christ how can anyone be so fucking retarded and get taken seriously?
How can someone broadcast such Levels of retardation for such a long time in such a technically inclined Medium/Hobby?

File: Shitposting.jpg (72KB, 425x338px)

72KB, 425x338px

>>2951611
>>2951566
I disagree. We've got insane amounts of spillover normies from the site boost.

People who'd usually be found on photo.net, dpreview.com and rumour sites now see this as a place to discuss cameras anonymously. They want to argue about gear online and prove people wrong but they think it's a good idea to do it outside the gear thread. They're the type of flawed humans who believe absolutely everything is objective and must be measured as objective. Instead of accepting that people like to do different tools and have different preferences, they instead can't handle that people have opinions. If you don't use this precise lens because X reviewer uses it or Y chart shows this result or because Z I like it then you're fucking wrong!
Worse is that now there's an IP count on pages, you can see that it's usually the same one or two people arguing over inane shit.

>>2951145
>>2951159
>>2951204
This is a good example of this, as the second post linked is to a Leica, yet they'll stop hop onto Sony or Fuji at any point to bait people. The same fucking people constantly fall for the obvious bait every time.

Who knows why they do it. They're either paid or are extreme fanboys with disgusting brand loyalty and buyers remorse. The only solace you'll get from it is that the genetic waste who argues over shit like this is probably unlikely to have a child. If they do have a child, there's always the hope that their spawn will die.

>>2951571
But different wavelengths of light do travel at different speeds through different mediums.

Seriously, how did you not know this? Where do you think ca comes from?

File: 1.png (3KB, 417x76px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 417x76px

>>2951705
>People who'd usually be found on photo.net, dpreview.com and rumour sites now see this as a place to discuss cameras anonymously
If any spillover has happened, I would say it's from /v/, the one board on 4chan that irrationally hates Sony as Satan.
And this only proves you are thinking too highly of yourself. This isn't a gateway board like /b/ or /v/, it's a dead board with little to no activity.

>This is a good example of this, as the second post linked is to a Leica
No, because 2 of those was referring to Sony lenses. If you didn't notice it, the whole OP post is an anti-sony post which means this thread.

>>2951711
c=c
The difference are too miniscule to measures with anything that doesn't require government funding.
This is the same Form of lucid pop-sci Guessing that leads people to believing Lamarckian Evolution or Crystal magic

>>2951750
It's quite a real thing bro.
It's why lenses use aspherical and quartz elements, to realign the colours again after being shifted by glass.

It's how a fucking prism works.

>>2951755
ca comes from different angles of refraction for different wavelengths. Not sure how that relates to speed in a medium but I'd say the IOR is what makes the difference.

>>2951784
what makes the colours refract you fucking moron. could it possibly be that they're going at different speeds?

>>2951799
Different wavelengths.
Red wavelengths carry less energy so they can be bent more by the same objects. Ifthey had to be bent more they'd lose energy rather than Speed.
The Speed Argument would only work if they had the same energy.
And still, the Argument the ultratard Made is that The light Hits the Sensor at different Moments.

>>2951807
My old Nikkor lenses have a red dot on then for focusing infrared light :0

>>2951807
And do longer or shorter waves travel faster...

>having to spell out every fucking thing

>>2951869
yea, I'll have some of yhat "not quite speed of light but almost" -red for 5 dolla

File: 1476853237104.png (38KB, 499x338px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 499x338px

>>2951724
Holy shit, you dumb af senpai.
Are you sure you're not from a gateway board yourself or some comment section?

>>2950640
>nice bokeh
It's not though. The color shifts that you get with the out of focus foreground and background look disgusting, there's a reason it's priced cheaply.

>>2951976
>The color shifts that you get with the out of focus foreground and background look disgusting

For all those rulers you're going to be photographing, show me a real world example of this happening and being a problem you gearfag twat.

>>2951986
Ugh, if you can't see it you're blind.

The Panasonic 25mm f1.7 is really cool

>>2949763
>AF

File: hqdefault.jpg (22KB, 480x360px)

22KB, 480x360px

>Not bowing before the true god emperor of poorfag lenses

File: 2016-10-24_08-39-37.jpg (786KB, 1041x1600px)

786KB, 1041x1600px

What the fuck? I would put this lens on all the cameras. And bring them all to IKEA.

Summilux 50 ASPH. Don't even care about the corners.

File: 20161023-DSC04821.jpg (367KB, 2048x1365px)

367KB, 2048x1365px

The Zeiss 50mm 1.8 Ultron again.
Not as much as 3dPOP™ as the Septon, but sharper and a shorter mfd. Overpriced as fuck on Fleebay.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	David Mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:23 22:56:18
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	640
Brightness	-2.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2952879
i like minoltas better.

>>2951986
astro

btw, whats best 50mm for astro, preferably full manual, and preferably not radioactive

>>2952879
That's a nice lens at f/4 and farther down. Wide open, it's noticeably soft even on a golfball-grained film, like way more than a (similarly priced) f/2.8 Industar m39 lens.

But hell, it's better than nothing. Also Glorious Nihon quality.

>>2953417
get a 24mm f2 instead.

>>2953435
I was just trying to stay OT. I currently have a 37mm, 100mm, and 200mm. Next I would like a 28mm or wider lens. Recommendations?

>>2953480
Nikon 8mm f2.8

>>2953481
thats probably a little too wide

>>2955489
whys the exif completely different homie.

>>2955493
wrong picture, my bad