https://www.flickr.com/photos/bw94/ 3641355002/ that pictur

>>3003974
too fucking soft for a prime. also cats are gay.

>""""zeiss"""" jena
into the trash it goes.

>>3003974
2017 - 70 = 1947

Late 40s is not exactly the dark ages of photography. Still very impressive.

I don't know what's shocking you about it.

Consider the following:
70 years ago was 1947
in 1947 people were shooting large format
large format still eclipses what can be done with digital most of the time.

People act like this shit was small miracles, but photography regressed before it advanced and refined lens design.

>>3003981
I'm more interested in the camera involved being a 5d. I had thought most of these old lens adaptations got done on mirrorless cameras.

>>3003980
>>3003981
>To complement the eastern block 135mm collection, this is with a Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar 135/4 from around 1959

Not 70s year old, more like 58.

>>3003984
>I had thought most of these old lens adaptations got done on mirrorless cameras.

dumb millennial.

>>3003979
>is it SHARP CRAWK? IS IT SHARP CRAWRK IS IT FUCKING SHARPPPPPPT?

>>3003988
Most of the videos and tutorials about the subject I've seen say you can't get the lens close enough to the sensor on a DSLR. Of course people adapted lenses with film cameras, but that's not what's in discussion here.

>>3003981
fuck that really went over your head hey? what i was trying to say a fuck 70 year old lens with 3 elements takes amazing pictures.

now all you can buy are bull shit high performance lens with 50 elements that will only cover not even 50% of photography. you pricks dont seem to realize /p/ is not only sports wildlife action and fast auto tracking and super high resolution and megadicks

>>3003993
>what i was trying to say a fuck 70 year old lens with 3 elements takes amazing pictures.

most old lenses would have performed decently in that setting. that particular lens offers a mediocre performance, soft, uncontrasty, shitty out of focus rendering. you werent impressed by the lens itself, you were impressed by the presence of colorful bokeh balls, like the dullard you are.

>>3003992
>Most of the videos and tutorials about the subject I've seen say you can't get the lens close enough to the sensor on a DSLR.

maybe if you werent a millenial newfag sack of shit you would remember when /p/ was full or rabal users with helios lenses.

>>3003996
maybe if you and your lot weren't misanthropic pieces of shit /p/ wouldn't be a wasteland of a board now

>>3003974
the background is distracting

>>3003974
There is nothing particularly odd about old 3 or 4 element lenses taking sharp pictures. Low amount of air-glass surfaces also typically deliver good contrast in the absence of glare/flare.

Just don't expect them to come with corner-to-corner sharpness, super fast aperture or control astigmatism or field curvature very well.

>>3003984

5d is one of the most adaptable DSLRs ever made. it can adapt almost anything and you don't even need it couple to a lens to make an image

When I had mine I had adapters for Nikon, M42, M39 Zenit, M39 LTM, Pantecks and I could hold my LF glass in front of it and make an image. Hell I made images with photocopier lenses on it. It can take split-prism focus screens from a Nikon FM

>>3003979
Fuck off fag

>muh sharpness
>muh iq
>muh clarity

Fucking neck yourself

I'm the worst at bokehwhoring. Unless it's bad I barely notice it.

>>3003995
well then by all means show me a slr lens for canon that out performs that lens

For a second I thought it said that the picture was from 1959 not just the lens, my mistake.

Anyway the old Zeiss lenses look cool. It's great in it's own way.

How much did that lens cost when it was new in 1958?

>>3004157
So if you were going for the best image quality to cost ratio would a 5d adapted to m42 and C mount lens be a good option?

>>3003996
I just bought a helios

Did I fall for the meme?

>>3004501
Its a great lens, but it all depends on how much you paid for it

>>3004215
Any lens will. This lens might have a cool bokeh but it most certainly suffers from massive flaring due to not having multi coating, no AF, and no automatic aperture. I like vintage lenses because they are cheap and produce some nice results, but there is no discussion in the fact that modern lenses have come a long way since then.

File: dt_140827_rope_hang_suicide_depression_800x600.jpg (59KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x600px

>>3004530
>it most certainly suffers from [...] no AF, and no automatic aperture

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3004530
For me the bokeh is the part that matters the most. I can live without automatic focus and aperture and avoid flaring. And I can improve contrast in software.

But the one thing I can't make in software is that bokeh.