Are lenses today faster than old lenses? How did people deal

File: 17ba924046a04142a5ef0f7f7182f84e.jpg (62KB, 560x373px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 560x373px

lenses have gotten slower on average, but they have gotten extremely sharp

sadly a lot of modern lenses don't have the same kind of character as most older lenses, just neutral tones, neutral colors, and ungodly sharpness

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual

File: 2017011401.jpg (684KB, 917x1280px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 917x1280px

>>3117060
Fast glass has always existed, like pic related. Modern glass isn't any faster than film era ones relative to their price level, and there isn't such a need for fast apertures with digital as there was with film because you can always get that extra stop with higher ISO. Film gets quite grainy at 1600, but can be pushed above that. As for how you used to deal with it, you just had to git gud with using flash.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M10
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.18
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Color Filter Array Pattern	1308
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:14 15:45:28
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Auto
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	917
Image Height	1280
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3117060
You got the best exposure you could considering the subject (e.g. the rate of a moving subject would give you the slowest shutter speed you could use), then you pushed the hell out of the film in development/used longer exposures when printing from a negative to coax out more detail at the price of grain.

>>3117069
This, the "film look" comes from the characteristics of the film, the lens, and the choices made by the photographer at the time of exposure and development. With digital you just take the flattest, most neutral exposure possible and then edit everything in.

>>3117060
>Are lenses today faster than old lenses?
Most modern lenses are zooms which are slower than primes. There were fast old lenses but they were downright awful wide open. Speed was more important back then because of slow film speeds. Today ISO is good at high speed so speed is less important. Fast lenses have to be good if not close to perfect wide open which means huge lenses with a lot of optics.

>How did people deal with slow lenses or general dark conditions back in the pre digital age?
Flash was usually de facto for a lot of fields. Some film can be pushed. You are always sacrificing quality for speed though.

Does film even go above 1600 iso?
Yes.

File: here's your camera fam..jpg (115KB, 442x425px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 442x425px

>>3117073
nuh uh

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Photographer	OLYMPUS CORP.
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	442
Image Height	425

File: 1499020597363.jpg (1MB, 1261x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1261x1280px

>>3117060
Have to remember that no glass is perfect, and so some of the light entering the lens will bounce around the lens at odd angles and just be converted to heat. How much light actually makes it to the lens is called a T-Stop. If you have a lens with 3.5 F-Stop, then in a perfect world it would have 3.5 T-Stop, but we don't live in a perfect world. So it might really be 4.5 T-Stop in reality, on a lens labeled 3.5 F-Stop. How old lenses compare to new lenses is something I don't know but I do know that modern IS (like in Canon EF lenses) adds additional lenses for the light to pass through and causing more attenuation of light, however minor this attenuation might be.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.18
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:28 19:23:15
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1261
Image Height	1280

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

104KB, 1000x1000px

>>3117060
> Are lenses today faster than old lenses?
The good, higher-end lenses today usually have better transmissivity (t-stoppage) and are actually sharp wide open.

The vast majority of 25+ years old lenses are not really sharp wide open.

But of course they did feature large apertures, too. Making your lens' aperture large isn't the hard part, after all.

>>3117076
Why not use the fuji? It has the same thing

>>3117060
>How did people deal with slow lenses or general dark conditions back in the pre digital age?
They used a flash.

>>3117086
That's usually my problem with lenses, they're pretty bad wide-open, so I don't even want to pay the premium on a fast lens.

fuck it, my alcatelidol ultra have a camera with aperture of focal angle of 3.5mm, suck it bitches

>>3117086

>lens is sharp as fuck (for 1.8, which is meh)
>still chromabs like a bitch

>>3117060
>He has never pushed Tri-X to 12800

How else would you achieve so much grain that your photo looks like a gravel driveway

>>3117060
>How did people deal with slow lenses or general dark conditions back in the pre digital age?

People just didn't take snapshits in poor lighting conditions.

It's not like today where you have to post new pictures on snapchat every 10 minutes.
People only took pictures when it was worth the film.

File: 1484148176369.jpg (48KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x400px

>>3117077
>tfw someone else posts your photo on /p/

>>3117060
Yes film goes over 1600, but it was grainy as hell. We used to hyper 400 film so you got the speed with finer grain.

File: 610fa84d09b6215229a128576224ede6.jpg (7KB, 330x330px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 330x330px

>>3117118
No - if you do pay the premium on a modern prime or zoom, it generally will be very sharp wide open. That *is* a good part of the reason why you'd pay more.

>>3117126
Not as bad as most older lenses. Plus easily corrected in camera or in post.

>>3117406
what does hyper mean in that context? something with the development process?

>>3117439
>easily corrected in camera or in post
eg. if you correct a purple fringe area that covers several pixels, you will be left with a desaturated halo around whatever edge it was present

with heavy chromabs, the correction will be visible

File: 7nJaKlM.jpg (106KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 720x960px

>>3117261
I liked it so I saved it, what county did you take that in. I asked in the other thread but no answer.

>>3117513
*country

>>3117060
>Are lenses today faster than old lenses?
No. Maybe at the extreme end engineers have made faster lenses, but consumer grade primes are the same. Kit lenses are generally slower than primes, so if you think about lenses in general i guess they have gotten slower.

can anyone post an example of a photo that is not sharp and/or features chromatic aberrations?

I ask because I use some vintage lenses that I've seen people claim are not sharp wide open but I don't know how undesirable this really is, particularly for 35mm film where I doubt it's that noticeable.

>>3117513
Finland. Took it last fall with a Nettar on expired Provia.

File: Smena 33.jpg (642KB, 1440x964px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 1440x964px

>>3117587
Some old cheap triplet lenses are really soft wide open, but most decent SLR primes from the film era aren't bad. Typically they have swirling bokeh and vignetting wide open, but center sharpness remains pretty decent. Chromabs are mostly a problem with teles only.

Pic related is a cheap Soviet triplet wide open (T-43 4/40).

>>3117492
Lateral cromabs can be corrected with very little traces left since it's done by stretching color channels, not by desaturating false colors. Longitudinal cromabs can leave you with halos, yes.

>>3117596
This photo seems limited by film grain, not by lens sharpness.