/p/ - Photography

Resources & discussion regarding the heliographic practice

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Enter the Darkroom


Designated Gear Thread Photog 05/22/2021 (Sat) 00:23:06 No.193
Dreaded but necessary, this is the spot for discussion towards the hardware and perhaps some of the software. Lenses, cameras, tripods, belts, grub, you name it.
DUEL Poorfag Economy-conscious full frame 200mm shoot-out extravaganza: >Nikkor G 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 (2003) [12 elements] >Kalimar Samyang MC 28-200mm f3.9-5.6 (mid-80s) [14 or 16 elements] >Vivitar Kino Precision 85-205mm f3.8 (1969) [13 elements] >Vivitar Tokina Tele Preset 200mm f3.5 (1969) [5 elements] >Nikkor Q.C. 200mm f4 (1969-1971) [4 elements] Done at f8, ISO200, SS 1/1600th sec. Here we can see a bunch of palms in a soft cloud day in non-HQ basic quality JPG, 2 super zooms, 1 normal zoom and 2 primes, all with lots of different coating systems. First we see the modern Nikkor G, a miracle due to its size and sharpness in relation to most other zooms yet it has one fatal flaw: Absurd distortion (as noted in the green post on the right). Other than that the very corners seem weak, the rest is respectably sharp and the colors/contrast are good due to having multicoating in all its elements (which are a lot), no discernible color cast either in the RAW file. Then a budget class predecessor, one of the first super zooms too, the Kalimar-branded Samyang aka muh first lens. Its distortion is not as severe but quality tumbles down hard, the corners are a kick in the balls, CA is lazer-high and the sharpness is never there, colors are okay and the contrast is actually quite decent due to a thick rainbow coating. Back in the day it obviously could only be shot with cheap film but nowadays it's a great student's tool, also the cheapest of the bunch. If you know what you are doing this lens is good as any, its only practical problem is the creeping in the push-pull mechanism because it's a heavy brother, the heaviest of the bunch too due to being chuck full of glass (14 or 16 old timey elements). And here it is, finally, the Vivitar 85-205mm in its Esoteric Pyramid preset scheme, a love tube in 70s-era portrait shooting. Contrast is not really there perhaps because it's the only non-multicoated lens here, a simple golden layer, but it's also the brightest image for some reason, maybe the preset f8 lets more light in or the actual T stop is higher. Sharpness is quite good, even down the corners, the colors are okay-ish and distortion is few. Here comes the primes, first my good old Vivitar-branded Tokina preset in relatively fast 3.5. I recall it having a colder color cast, the sharpness is good, the corners are decent, contrast is good, basically this one is on par with the Nikkor zoom if a bit better due to lack of discernible distortion and stronger corners. Front heavy, feels like an anchor at times but honestly it was my fav prime... Until this soda can appeared, the Nikkor Q.C. at f4. Contrast is pretty high, sharpness is good to great, corners are strong, colors are somewhat vibrant, no distortion and the actual focal length seems to be actually 200mm (or perhaps longer). Of course it's all a matter of tastes in personal hobby photography, this is just a quick test on the general qualities of random sample lenses found on the market. You can usually buy the last 4 lenses all for 100 US dollars or less not counting shipping or taxes
Open file (337.92 KB 1500x1000 200mm-HC.jpg)
Open file (349.31 KB 1229x1600 1608178358042-0.jpg)
Open file (221.01 KB 1000x1500 Ex.jpg)
>>194 And here's the lenses in question, in order of appearance from right to left. Ah yes, might as well talk about the beauty in the middle there, the Kino Precision-made Vivitar-branded 85-205mm at constant f/3.8 in interchangeable T-mount with preset aperture design displayed by a still-unexplained red triangle/pyramid; a lens that makes me a lens buddy to some anon around here but which is also a very viable option to most penny-pinching photographers in the world. An early zoom design and one of the pioneer computer-designed lenses this long johnny sports an all metal construction which doesn't feel heavy due to handling more like a stick than an optical piece. What surprised me the most, at least in this supposedly rare version of the lens (which had 10 variations from 1967 to 1975) is that it's practically parfocal which means it changes focus very little to not at all once you move the focal length, pair it that its focus breathing (the change of focal length in different focus distances) is also very small means you have a very decent lens for video use, add to it that the focus ring is long-ish, smooth and the aperture ring is declicked by default. if found in good conditions and for the usual price it goes i consider this lens to be somewhat of a steal, i got it for 15 US dollars. Obligatory palm shot here, its fans were dry as hell and the setting sun light was pretty harsh so i also shot some bees in the shadow frolicking around some high-as-fuck palm flowers, edited softly here with no sharpening added. Tis a shitty test to check the colors but there's that, at least it shows that the love stick is totally usable if you have a 12 to 18mp full-frame camera, more so if you can actually nail focus unlike my banged up eyes. Like we said, the lens doesn't have complex coatings which gives it a somewhat washed look but it is decent against CA (chromatic aberration) maybe because it has some extra glass inside to combat it. One thing to note is despite that high element count the lens actually is not really corrected/optimized for the OoF (out of focus backgrounds) or bokeh, mainly because back in the day that wasn't really important or even considered, yet this plays a huge advantage in some exercises i've been making: One of the myths in lens rendition is that low-elements can and will "pop" the subjects, aka give an impression of 3Dmentionality, but one day i was looking at an old post here (>>117) and realized i had made a huge mistake/discovery: I confused 3D Pop with Diorama Effect yet i realized they are probably the same thing. A couple of decades and countless amounts of digital (and sometimes published) paragraphs debating the existence of the Pop could've been easily explained if someone just screamed that the 3D effect is just a milder, subtler but still visible version of a Diorama mechanism but with lighting changes in different depths giving it an extra layer of complexity/realism. How is this swell disco-era portrait maker relevant to this? that due to its somewhat uncorrected focus plane, which has more gradation than usual in modern lenses, i sometimes can make planes more subtle and "pop" subjects, which is controversial in the fringe community due to having more than 8/9 elements (13 here), the non-fringe ones say all of this doesn't exist. Last pic, done in a seedy bathroom on an undisclosed location, is a brute force example of said effect which needs both back and foreground planes being out-of-focus and light hitting the said planes differently; in a more natural, effective example these planes should be somewhat connected instead of this image which are objects isolated at different distances. When i hit the streets i will try to recreate it more effectively, hell i might even try it with the Kalimar too. The bokeh characteristic of this lens is that it sometimes gets nervous but never distracting until you get the strong cat eyes in the corners, it swirls sometimes too hence why them highlight effects. This lens is definitely usable, cool to use because of its durable but gentle build construction and the technical aspects makes it practical for the videofags of today, cheap as dirt too. Also an unfortunate victim in Mutt's Law examples i've seen in some video reviews' comment sections too, the ad's sweltering nature didn't help people back then either.
Open file (55.91 KB 298x343 Vivitar @205mm.jpg)
Open file (173.75 KB 638x663 Cosina @400mm.jpg)
Open file (463.01 KB 1267x1323 amoeba.jpg)
Open file (850.62 KB 3000x2000 flare.jpg)
Open file (1.96 MB 3000x2000 flares.jpg)
>>194 You finally got the Vivitar as well, nice! Did it come with the zoom lever? I thought it was dumb until I tried it on a road trip on a moving vehicle, it makes a huge difference with how long the zoom throw is. By the way, how's the infinity focus on yours? I notice the same thing on your Vivitar as on mine, it's a really low contrast lens, yet sharp. Which sometimes is a good thing. The other day I was looking at some pics I took with it and they almost looked like vintage film, like images from a 70s movie. Of your lenses I think I like the last one the most, very vibrant and contrasty. >>196 Glad to see you've been enjoying it, it's an absolute steal at the price it goes for. By the way here's a comparison of my M42 black hood against a Phoenix branded Cosina 100-400mm with the usual moon shots. Not quite scientific as I don't even know how stopped down the Vivitar was and they were taken in different conditions, but it's something. The Cosina is EF mount and the Vivitar M42. Both taken on a 20MP full frame. Cosina 100-400mm f/4.5-6.7 @400mm, f/8 1/1000s, 800 ISO. Vivitar 85-205mm f/3.8 @205mm, ISO 400, 1/640s, unknown aperture. I think it's remarkable how close the results are with almost half the length on the Vivitar. With a higher resolution sensor it could maybe get close to showing some of the fine detail the Cosina is showing, you can see the finer bumps on the surface wanting to come out. Both are 100% crops. With the Vivitar I had to correct CA a bit more, but other than that it was fine. Both demanded bumping the clarity a bit though (clarity, or microcontrast, is what I thought was associated with "3D pop" since you were talking about it. Maybe it's about getting more clarity on the focused object and it gradually falling across the frame). And like you said, the handholdability on the Vivitar is superb, very easy to stabilize compared to other lenses. >The bokeh characteristic of this lens is that it sometimes gets nervous but never distracting until you get the strong cat eyes in the corners, it swirls sometimes too hence why them highlight effects. This lens is definitely usable, cool to use because of its durable but gentle build construction and the technical aspects makes it practical for the videofags of today, cheap as dirt too. I think it's a lens that demands shooting RAW video though, as combining its footage with others can be hard because of the unique contrast characteristics. Mine has what I believe to be some balsam separation so the bokeh isn't particularly great. I've never minded "onion rings" too much, but this one has an amoeba-like thing instead that really bothers me. It can be mitigated though. On an unrelated note, it also happens to flare up beautifully, particularly when stopped down but wide open with a strong light source it also has those flares that look like they came from a movie about space or something. I find it particularly cinematic. People tend to look down on "hex nut" flares as something distracting that should be avoided, but the way I see it they can be a beautiful thing when used to get a particular look. >Also an unfortunate victim in Mutt's Law examples i've seen in some video reviews' comment sections too, the ad's sweltering nature didn't help people back then either. Kek. Nothing is safe from the menace.
>>202 >Did it come with the zoom lever? I had two options because i was specifically looking for the pyramid one (to avoid machining a non-AI Nikon F mount ring), a roughed one with the lever or a clean one with a macro extension tube. I picked the latter and in close inspection the tube wasn't an extension, to be fair i don't know what it is, i don't recognize it (not a screw so no M39-M42) and the mouth to the film/sensor is significantly smaller, also has a steel button to disengage it from the mount. Maybe it's a rangefinder adapter, i will look into it later because selling it will probably get me 15 bucks back. I have used levers so i am looking forward to adapting one, i see it fits using the ring screw's groves so i might do a makeshift one later. It came clean as a whistle so not that angry, especially for the price, optics don't have a single scratch and to be fair i got nice souvenirs out of its packaging, it came with a brand new Nikon leather pouch and seller shipped it inside a degenerate legal weed box that got inspected hard by customs >they almost looked like vintage film, like images from a 70s movie Definitely, i shot some moving cars to catch the passengers and the images look "dusty" but in a good way, not much contrast but the tonalities are all there and there's a brightness to it, in the test shot it was the only lens (in full res) that caught the innards of the palms' heads without blowing the highlights of anything. It's strange to explain it, like it shows more visual range than otherwise more contrasty lenses, or it flattens the image ala modern lenses without being clinical enough to also boast the colors while doing weird stuff into the shadows. >I think I like the last one the most Boy that's another story, i ended up going native and looking into Nikkor stuff because some of them are really cheap and, to be fair, Nikon's success was mainly because they were an optics company rather than a body/film one so it made sense their old stuff was good enough. I have two more of those up my sleeve to test but so far i can vouch that 200mm is a top lens, there's some technical shenanigans Nikon did to scalp people back then but i can tell you can find the basic version of that thing for 30 dollars while the popular AI version, which is practically the same thing, costs a 100 for a good copy. Despite its MFD, in practice, is so good it's not even funny, i am considering rewriting some of that lens list due to how good this soda can is, i didn't on the spot because manual is a pain in the bitch so far. >how's the infinity focus on yours? Didn't test the lenses for that but i did set them all to infinity and used live view to adjust, i don't recall the exact specifics but i do think none of them had a fixed infinity stop, they all go beyond that and that makes it a bit tougher when trying to shoot landscape. If you have a question i sure can test it to compare, for the moment i can somewhat say it goes over infinity by a small bit. but cannot confirm with confidence.
>>203 >clarity, or microcontrast, is what I thought was associated with "3D pop" lel, 3D Pop is like the word Mise en Scene, it's used indiscriminately by many talking heads hence why there's a wide array of beliefs towards it so it's a case where everybody and nobody is right. My belief towards it is the focus fallout mixed with said out of focus areas still nailing comprehensively the lighting differences between a plane and another, obviously it requires special lighting conditions and objects in planes but the problem arises when a composition challenges the corrections made to the glass. For example modern glass made for portraits usually makes the OoF/bokeh to be soft and puffy but some lenses mush the hell out of it, and the focus plane has very little fallout combined with a flat profile, this makes flat surfaces perpendicular to the sensor to be excellent in detail and in some faces it makes everything a dreamy background behind the focus, but if the subject has a big nose or long hair then some people will detect the cutthroat line between focus/out-of-focus... and all of this is to explain the biggest problem of all: Lateral/Angled compositions inside a linear surface, that's why many adverts show flat shots perpendicular to the camera and why many photographers (can't vouch for videographers) use some filters to soften and make the gradient more subtle, apart from halation. First image is an example from a forum of some dude who tackled the question hard, it is kinda perpendicular but the streets/planes change levels (lower part in the lower image, goes up in the tree, goes down again to the sidewalk, continues in asphalt and then goes up to the houses), lighting is not consistent but it is detected and rendered with its subtle differences (leafs on top, grass near the sidewalk behind has a glimpse of sun) and the focus fallout is a smooth gradient; one might say the accurate rendition of light in the OoF is microcontrast, i can agree to that yet the effect persists (although not as good) when done artificially as a filter or in Photoshop; microcontrast is usually much more exploited in "silver" prints and dastardly colorful images. The second image is a bad example found from my part, especially when the bastard didn't focus at anything and it was close too with a faster lens, but it shows that the corrected lens that makes bokeh really smooth also bangs the hell out of the gradient if not corrected for that too. There's times where too much bokeh is just too much, the people who said otherwise were stuck with f2.8's rather than medium format or f1.4s, the easiest way to check all of this is shooting measuring tape in an irregular plane and i will do that but first i need a flat lens, like a Sigma Art that costs more than all my gear together. One thing is for sure, it's easier to pull this on film than in digital, in the former case the crystals do tons of their own work to fix and smooth things out, in the latter case the sensor wants the glass to do all the job or else will show the ugly truth. >unique contrast characteristics. >Mine has what I believe to be some balsam separation >amoeba-like thing bokeh balls Good lord, i'll have to test my lens for that just to compare, i do have a secret lens around here which i wanted to compare with another upcoming secret lens but i can make a leaked statement and say one is not in the best of conditions and i don't recall it ever doing that. The Vivitar 200mm f3.5 also has balsam problems which make it flare like a flower so i will try to do all of them, that petri dish bokeh is not something normal i've found while pushing my lens "a bit hard". I suppose that thing is the moon? >"hex nut" flares Reminds me a lot of old anime, always wondered what they meant until i used a camera later and got mad because i realized they drew them really irregular, like if the blades were all oiled up and opened really badly. I do like them, problem is when it clouds the image and busts the contrast like balsam problems do. Nice sunset wheat field place, no kidding, the clouds add an extra touch. Thought you were a port side fellow rather than a rural guy. That Cosina is sharp if that's a 100% crop, starting to doubt the Samyang 100-500mm, also saw some lenses in the Tokina AT-X line, if the shipping costs weren't so bad i would consider them really bad.
Open file (104.50 KB 1000x667 amoeba ii.jpg)
>>203 >I have used levers so i am looking forward to adapting one, i see it fits using the ring screw's groves so i might do a makeshift one later. Definitely do it, it's worth using. Mine wasn't as clean as I thought when I ordered it (besides the amoeba thing the rear element has the coating chipped or something, it's missing a tiny circle the size of a pencil tip and I suspect what you see in the sunset picture next to the rightmost nut is caused by it) but it did come with some goodies: the original leatherette case with internal padding and the lever (which I didn't know was in the pack until it arrived). Despite the (conservation) flaws I really like the lens, probably a bit because of fetishizing the "cold war spy" aesthetics it evokes. >It came clean as a whistle so not that angry, especially for the price, optics don't have a single scratch and to be fair i got nice souvenirs out of its packaging, it came with a brand new Nikon leather pouch >seller shipped it inside a degenerate legal weed box that got inspected hard by customs kek, I guess you're glad it made it to you at all. >there's some technical shenanigans Nikon did to scalp people back then but i can tell you can find the basic version of that thing for 30 dollars while the popular AI version, which is practically the same thing, costs a 100 for a good copy. I'm well aware of their shenanigans if you mean pre-Ai lenses being incompatible unless converted. >Despite its MFD How long is it? Not that I would really mind, I'm not really a macro guy. >i didn't on the spot because manual is a pain in the bitch so far. You mean focusing? Maybe you should look into an AF confirm chip, I'm pretty sure it enables some functions you don't have otherwise. Not sure how that stuff works on Nikon because I switched systems before becoming a vintage lens scavenger lol, all I had in my Nikon days was a 18-55mm VR. >Didn't test the lenses for that but i did set them all to infinity and used live view to adjust, i don't recall the exact specifics but i do think none of them had a fixed infinity stop, they all go beyond that and that makes it a bit tougher when trying to shoot landscape. If you have a question i sure can test it to compare, for the moment i can somewhat say it goes over infinity by a small bit. but cannot confirm with confidence. I mean in the Vivitar f/3.8. Mine has infinity roughly at the center of one of the halves of the symbol. A bit annoying shooting things in the distance. >>204 >First image is an example from a forum of some dude who tackled the question hard, it is kinda perpendicular but the streets/planes change levels That picture is like the definition of 3D pop, lol. >one might say the accurate rendition of light in the OoF is microcontrast, Microcontrast I think is what you can see in fine detail that's focused. That picture does exhibit a lot of immersive characteristics though. >Good lord, i'll have to test my lens for that just to compare, i do have a secret lens around here which i wanted to compare with another upcoming secret lens but i can make a leaked statement and say one is not in the best of conditions and i don't recall it ever doing that. The Vivitar 200mm f3.5 also has balsam problems which make it flare like a flower so i will try to do all of them Interesting, looking forward to seeing it. >that petri dish bokeh is not something normal i've found while pushing my lens "a bit hard". I suppose that thing is the moon? It's not the moon, I did a quick test with the flashlight from my phone a few meters from it. If I do it with street lights in the distance you can even see the pattern repeated, pic related. I suspect that it's in front of the aperture because if I stop down I can see how it's cropped by the blades. I wonder if it could be oil or maybe it had fungus at some point and it was cleaned. Some of the internal elements seem to have circular scratches but it could be a reflection when shining the light and looking into it. The amoeba thing can be seen from certain angles. Another possibility is oil moving on some element, but the shape has been the same for months. If I had the proper tools I'd probably open it to take a look but I'm afraid of ruining the collimation (lens alignment) and losing its sharpness. >Reminds me a lot of old anime, always wondered what they meant until i used a camera later and got mad because i realized they drew them really irregular, like if the blades were all oiled up and opened really badly. I do like them, problem is when it clouds the image and busts the contrast like balsam problems do. Agreed, however to make them show up you really have to get the lens in odd angles. >Nice sunset wheat field place, no kidding, the clouds add an extra touch. Thought you were a port side fellow rather than a rural guy. It was taken on the trip I was telling you about that made me appreciate the zoom lever, lol. It's also not wheat but some roadside weeds. (1/2)
>>204 >That Cosina is sharp if that's a 100% crop, starting to doubt the Samyang 100-500mm, also saw some lenses in the Tokina AT-X line, if the shipping costs weren't so bad i would consider them really bad. Yeah, it's no slouch. Bear in mind it was a selected shot, though. I think the lens is probably less stable than the Vivitar at the internal level, or maybe the slower shots I did were hampered by my own movement. But yes, it's worth it. And in Nikon F you can often find it cheaper than for Canon EF. I lucked out finding a good sample for $92 after my offer to the seller. One thing to consider is that it's a lens designed with AF in mind (which is somewhat noisy) and it shows. It's not nice to focus it manually, certainly not as smooth of a experience as the Vivitar. And because of the push-pull design there's some creep. That's not to say it isn't great to use, though. I don't know how it compares to the Samyang but I can say it's a recommended purchase. I even managed to make out most of the lettering on a sign on a rooftop two blocks from where I was (using a tripod with decent daylight). About the Tokinas, I'd say watch out for the "Tokina glow", Tokina is infamous for its dreamy chromatic aberration. It can look beautiful sometimes but in a super telephoto it's probably not the best thing. (2/2)
Open file (381.23 KB 4256x2832 KP01.JPG)
Open file (472.70 KB 4256x2832 KP02.JPG)
Open file (719.62 KB 4256x2832 VT03.JPG)
Open file (771.50 KB 4256x2832 TL04.JPG)
Open file (699.53 KB 4256x2832 TL05.JPG)
>>205 >I guess you're glad it made it to you at all. You have no idea, everytime i get a lens i thank God and call it a day. Last lens i got, first one from Japan, costed me 50 (extra goodies) but customs jewed me 30 from taxes and damaged a case because they judged it was valued 150+. I called FedEx and they said if i paid the costs then it meant i was okay with it, and the seller told me he declared 40 in value. I believe the jap not because i am a weaboo but because the stickers were in my area's language and jargon that i doubt the asian man will know. Next time those feds come to my door i will sure as hell make the guy suffer. The worst shipping experiences i've had are the cheapest and the most expensive fees paid, everyone's out to get you and practically i am forced to sell the lens to recoup the loss, i was planning to gift it but oh well, that's the advantage of not announcing gifts. >How long is it? Not that I would really mind Old versions are supposedly 3 meters i think, some newer versions are 2 meters and AI ones which got redesigned had 1.8 meters or something. Mine is the last version from the old 1961 formula aka non-AI but i can get in-focus at 1.5, i don't understand why. >AF confirm chip I am looking at chipping the Nikkors with dandelion chips as they are fairly cheap but that will come later, my problem is just that my eyes some days wake up in bad mood and i can't see peak focus. Short-sighted with astigmatism, everything at night gets sunstars and coma noise for me. >That picture does exhibit a lot of immersive characteristics I am very prone to believe shooting at things having in mind the Diorama Effect and trying to get recreate it is the key unlike what the popists say ("it just happens sometimes bro"), in small objects i don't think fast glass is necessary but in "normal" scale scenes which are the most "believable" cases i will need f2 or something. Yesterday i went out to the streets for the first time since March 2020 and with a camera since 2019, i will try to get the D700 out for leisure soon enough and i am sure sooner or later i will catch it, the pop i mean. >Mine has infinity roughly at the center of one of the halves of the symbol I'm suspecting it's the same deal for me, if the symbol is in its center the focus goes beyond infinity. CORRECTION: I tried to get a hill i know for a fact is a couple of kilometers away from me, i used live view to get focus and when i nailed it i checked the scale on the lens and it showed something between 10 and 20 meters, when i moved to infinity (it stops in the middle of the sign) it went past it. I then tried the MFD, which is supposedly 2 meters, and i nailed focus at roughly it (used my bed as reference). I don't get it, perhaps good old third party scale shenanigans? >flashlight from my phone a few meters >with street lights in the distance you can even see the pattern repeated Very well, here's a few shots i tried to emulate it but i think i blew the lights (best fix right?): >Esoteric Pyramid wide open at 205mm in first pic which is a cellphone flashlight, second pic is a wide open 85mm streetlight and some cityscape >Vivitokina 200mm 3.5 that has considerable balsam separation in front element, third pic is a building with some lamps under it >The Test Lens which has all kind of problems from outside and inside, fourth pic is my desktop light and a cellphone flashlight, fifth pic is the same building as third pic The nasty spots i suppose are dust spots because i can't see anything inside the lenses, the Tokina fares badly against the sun but even against my incandescent desktop i did decently enough. So far i think your lens shows either condensed balsam making a big bubble (probably left in the sun for way too long) or an element inside was chipped or busted hard. You mention it's frontal to the blades so it cannot be the rear element being chipped (common case), oil i don't know, it can be if it had tons of grease in the hellicoid but it usually smears in bubbles or gas rather than big spots and like you said if it doesn't move then it probably isn't it (also because non-preset/low-bladed lenses supposedly don't have that much grease), fungus cleansing aftermath i do not know very well but my test lens had a Torino scale 8 event in its rear element yet it doesn't show such a contrasty difference in shades (although it does shows the chip and coating damage) As a side note i am either impressed at the 85-205mm against my direct bright desktop light in a shot i did or trolled by the Test Lens being fucked in the ass by it in all the ones it appeared on, although there is an aesthetic flaw to it. >I'm afraid of ruining the collimation Lens has 9 groups inside two toiler paper rolls of aluminum, it's a tricky one for sure to align, in this case buying another is literally cheaper than the tools to fix it unless you were going to do that anyways. Re-gluing lens groups is another story despite being made look easy by repairmen. >I'd say watch out for the "Tokina glow", Tokina is infamous for its dreamy chromatic
Open file (184.69 KB 1024x768 P1170542-1.jpg)
>>206 >Nikon F you can often find it cheaper than for Canon EF Lately Nikon F rocketed in price for some reason, lenses aren't Pentax K expensive but it's going there. >I don't know how it compares to the Samyang I recall your post at the other place, the Cosina is clearly a more refined and sharper lens than the manual salesman-tier Samyang which is quite soft but cheap sometimes, it's a slightly faster copy of the Cosina 100-500 f8 which is the direct predecessor of the 100-400 AF. In this aspect i am looking more at budget or handling comfiness because i plan to put a dusty cheap teleconverter 3X in it anyways >somewhat noisy I can live with it, especially if the subject is not going to hear me that far away up in the sky behind a window looking what underwear to use that day just joking, unless.... >I'd say watch out for the "Tokina glow", Tokina is infamous for its dreamy chromatic aberration And... loving it.
>>209 I'm short sighted with astigmatism too, but I use the camera with my glasses on and it works fine, lol. >Diorama Effect Isn't it related to perspective control (Tilt-Shift) lenses though? >when i nailed it i checked the scale on the lens and it showed something between 10 and 20 meters, when i moved to infinity (it stops in the middle of the sign) it went past it. I then tried the MFD, which is supposedly 2 meters, and i nailed focus at roughly it (used my bed as reference). I don't get it, perhaps good old third party scale shenanigans? Mine stops in the middle of the sign too, but only goes slightly past it. I think maybe your T-mount adapter is too short. Your lens probably has a longish minimum focusing distance because of that. With mine I can pretty much take rough measures of distances with the scale even. Also I just did a rough test with a measuring tape and its MFD is about 1.75m. >The nasty spots i suppose are dust spots because i can't see anything inside the lenses, the Tokina fares badly against the sun but even against my incandescent desktop i did decently enough Mine is nearly impossible to see when looking inside, but sometimes the light can reveal it. >collimation Just what I thought. Although the weight of the lens makes it expensive with shipping, I usually end up paying like $30 in shipping fees (I usually bundle a few things together, but these lenses are nearly 1kg each). >>210 > In this aspect i am looking more at budget or handling comfiness because i plan to put a dusty cheap teleconverter 3X in it anyways Nice. One thing that makes this relatively comfy is that it's lightweight for what it is, I think it's even slightly lighter than the Vivitar. >And... loving it. I worded that wrong, it was spherical not chromatic lol. But I think you figured it out with the glow thing. >noisy I mentioned it mostly because of video, but for sure it would upset no subject at 400mm lol. >Olympus in the pic Oh lord that's like 300-1000mm equivalent... I don't think the lens can match the sensor though, those pixels are packed tight.
Oh and one word of warning I forgot to give you when you mentioned the leather pouch: make sure it's always dry, leather has a nasty tendency to trap moisture and the lenses end up with fungus. If you have a pack of silica gel it can't hurt to put one in it.
Open file (591.63 KB 1500x1182 Petko Iarnov ~ 198+-.jpg)
Open file (189.43 KB 1024x856 Tryptophan ~ Path 7.jpg)
Open file (197.87 KB 1024x768 PB030645-1.jpg)
>>211 >I use the camera with my glasses on and it works fine Same here but my glasses are a bit clunky, at least with the rubber eyecup i can see better. >Isn't it related to perspective control For doing it manually and full-on yes, it is very related but in my theory the effect doesn't need to be strong enough (as in half-assed) to work. Basically i need a lens fast enough to blur "moderately" (f2.8 or even a 3.5) and most importantly a soft rendition/fallout in backgrounds AND foregrounds, which is a bit harder to find as most lenses with corrective glass usually just concentrate on background bokeh while the foreground gets nervous or mushy, and older lenses really didn't look into it. There's famous cases where the design gave way to all of this and one of the confirmed ones is soon to be in my possession in good condition so i will test it to hell and back, i am confident but i still need to find a scene to exploit it. I am worried tho that the final touch is a film thing, i've seen it replicated by digital but it's not as normal, and in my area you need to piss gold to afford shooting 6x7. >I think maybe your T-mount adapter is too short. I'm suspecting it too but that's wacky for a standardized mount adapter. >longish minimum focusing distance because of that Lens implies the MFD is 2m or slightly under it while my bed is 1.85m and i can nail focus from one extreme to the other, so i am not that far away from it. Will look into it later, shame these lenses don't have that much info despite being widely distributed back then. >I usually end up paying like $30 in shipping fees Canada? that's quite the fee, that's usually what i pay for stuff in Jew York or Japan, unless you want that famous and cozy USPS attention lol. >I mentioned it mostly because of video Oh right, forgot about that. A hybrid camera seems so far away in my plans i always forget i need to look into it because i do plan to get into it hard someday. >I don't think the lens can match the sensor though Thought the same, a M4/3 20mp sensor is a 3.3 pixel pitch although the D800 there is dangerously close, 4.8 i think. But taking into account that Olympus guy, if someone is adept at downscaling images for the internet to sharpen them (and sharpening again with "Publish for Web" option) it's the japanese, they usually rarely post something up 800px. Seems the Oly guy is using that combination mainly for the focal compression (third pic), the so-called point'n'shoot aesthetic. >If you have a pack of silica gel it can't hurt to put one in it. I didn't think of that, you are right, it's a soft leather bag that smells like brand new so it must be still moderately humid. Thank You.
>>213 >There's famous cases where the design gave way to all of this and one of the confirmed ones is soon to be in my possession in good condition so i will test it to hell and back, i am confident but i still need to find a scene to exploit it. Very nice, looking forward to seeing the results. >I am worried tho that the final touch is a film thing, i've seen it replicated by digital but it's not as normal, and in my area you need to piss gold to afford shooting 6x7. Film mostly makes a difference when shooting very wide angle with a very short flange (other than the obvious demosaicing stuff). Sensors are thicker so they vignette like crazy on the corners. But with Nikon F that shouldn't matter at all, or with DSLRs in general. That said, I lust after Foveon like crazy. >Lens implies the MFD is 2m or slightly under it while my bed is 1.85m and i can nail focus from one extreme to the other, so i am not that far away from it. Will look into it later, shame these lenses don't have that much info despite being widely distributed back then. By "lens implies" do you mean the lowest number is 2m? Because on mine it is too, but the focus ring moves way further so you end up with 1.75. >I'm suspecting it too but that's wacky for a standardized mount adapter. Imprecise machining isn't unheard of when it comes to this kind of thing, specially coming from China like I suppose your adapter does. >Canada? I wish. I use a freight forwarder that gives me an address to collect and bundles my stuff and then sends it to my country. They charge per weight. >that's quite the fee, that's usually what i pay for stuff in Jew York or Japan, unless you want that famous and cozy USPS attention lol. Don't get me started lol. I had one package delayed for over a month and another apparently lost. >Seems the Oly guy is using that combination mainly for the focal compression (third pic) Comfy filmlike aesthetics, loving the cafe racer build too. At first glance the helmet looks like a fairing. >Seems the Oly guy is using that combination mainly for the focal compression (third pic), the so-called point'n'shoot aesthetic. You mean the telephoto perspective compression? Because to me that's the opposite of a point and shoot aesthetic lol >I didn't think of that, you are right, it's a soft leather bag that smells like brand new so it must be still moderately humid. Thank You. Pleased to help, I'd say be even more wary of the older ones. The explanation I got is that because leather is essentially skin it tries to stay hydrated.
>>222 >I lust after Foveon like crazy. That's a topic i wanted to touch after using the Stylus a bit some days ago. I wanted to hit the street to see my pace and antics now having read a ton, i am torn deciding what to buy for a future side camera, i am between the Stylus 1/Canon G1X and a Sigma DP2X. The former is that zoom jack-of-all-trades and the latter is a clunky piece of software with a golden sensor, the lens itself is not bad either (40 something at f2.8). It's an old Foveon but it produces enough to know it's that tech, and a fixed lens might limit myself enough to focus on composing well. Yet in my two outings i've seen i stop a lot to do telephoto, i use compression and like to peep from afar, honestly i don't think a fixed lens or even a 24-70mm equivalent is going to do it for me. I am a perv, a zoom fucker, what can i do. But one day i will try the Fov, those bastards are taking way too long with the full frame version and the SD1 Merrill went up in price hard, the Quattro seems a bit clunky and still doesn't have a decent Nikon F adapter but man, the pictures i've seen are stellar, shame Ps crashes a lot with their .xf3 files and the shadows are frankly a bit dirty when lifted. It's a studio camera first and almost foremost but landscapes with it or scenery after a rain would look splendid; i am suspecting Sigma will screw it up because they've been trying quirky body designs and the Fp was a Sony-tier ergonomics nightmare, i am starting to think i will end up with the DSLR SD1 Merrill. Sad to think a reflex FF Foveon will probably not be done. The Quattro is one of the few sensors that shocked me when converted in B&W, perhaps i was used to see the Lincoln Town Car in grey and the USPS in blue (and bricks in reddish orange) but when i saw the second pic here i got the impression i could "see" the original colors. >the focus ring moves way further so you end up with 1.75. Kinda same here but i remember reading 2m, unless they also read the ring and called it the same so i suppose it is 1.75/1.85 >I use a freight forwarder Now that sounds exotic, won't push you but that really sounds like a pain in the butt. >gives me an address to collect and bundles my stuff Kinda what eBay offers to me but they do deliver to my door if 50 or less, if more i have to deal with USPS which hasn't been that bad to me >I had one package delayed for over a month Got a buster better, i had one delayed 7 months some years ago, it was from Japan and the shipper packaged me sealed legal candy God bless superbus when i got it after tons of paperwork they delivered it to me with a wrecked box and the candy wrappers empty inside. From that day i vowed to undermine and shit our local customs agents anytime i get the chance, they are the devil and deserve nothing but stale bread and slimy milk. Didn't learn either when i started buying lenses, my first buy was the Stylus with the eBay U.S. service and a Helios 81 from Ukraine, that one never got here sadly but i'll get it eventually. >telephoto perspective compression? that's the opposite of a point and shoot aesthetic lol Oh snap, well from my experience and reading i recall vividly the bridge PNSs going to something around 300mm equiv. in 2'3 sensors that never get significant OoF, which makes the compression be entirely visible in seemingly-near planes, sometimes in wider focal lengths too if the lens was slow, making every kid and his cone in focus; It is a particularity and usual tell-tale of cellphone snaps when not using the in-vogue state-of-the-art computational bokeh simulators, in later ones the sign is glitchy sectors of the image with blurred objects near entirely in-focus ones. To give an example in >>164 the dude and the white wall are 25 to 30m away according to G-Earth, the white column to the right is 30 to 35m away from him too. Fourth pic here is a random Flickr example very similar to the stuff one could see in the short-lived MySpace photo profiles back in the pre-2007 days. >because leather is essentially skin it tries to stay hydrated Makes sense, i added a bag in it and will probably add another sometime later. It is really, really soft and humid, feels like an actual black oiled leather jacket. And about that Stylus snap outing, if you like spherical aberrations that machine has it in spades, some images have so much up the wazoo i don't know what to do. Stylusfag also had them but who knows what the hell did he do in post-process, he said he used little color editing but i can see he probably slid the sliders like a Tony Hawk game.
>>225 >SD1 That's the one I lust after, lol. >The Quattro is one of the few sensors that shocked me when converted in B&W, perhaps i was used to see the Lincoln Town Car in grey and the USPS in blue (and bricks in reddish orange) but when i saw the second pic here i got the impression i could "see" the original colors. What you're seeing is the lack of demosaicing. You get basically the same image a native monochrome sensor would give you. It just looks crisp like nothing else. >Now that sounds exotic, won't push you but that really sounds like a pain in the butt. It's really the only way to get stuff to my country without paying an arm and a leg, lol. Most of the time direct shipping is more expensive, and with the freight forwarder I don't have to count the shipping in the total price for customs. >Oh snap, well from my experience and reading i recall vividly the bridge PNSs going to something around 300mm equiv. in 2'3 sensors that never get significant OoF Oh I didn't think you were talking about bridge cameras. In that case you're absolutely right. You can get a similar effect stopping down on a different camera, but not every lens gets to that equivalent. >It is really, really soft and humid, feels like an actual black oiled leather jacket. I'd store the lens out of it until it's dryer, lol. As some random trivia, I happen to own a leather jacket and it's not something you'd describe as humid so what you're saying worries me about the lens. >he said he used little color editing but i can see he probably slid the sliders like a Tony Hawk game. lol maybe he used some presets or something.
>>225 Also do you think maybe we're drawn to telephoto lenses as a result of being shortsighted?
Open file (260.43 KB 400x440 s640x480s.png)
>>226 >What you're seeing is the lack of demosaicing I've heard the term but i am frankly a pleb with some technical aspects, i suppose that's the process of the sensor trying to make sense and allocating colors/tones that fall between in the Bayer? >I don't have to count the shipping in the total price for customs Well that makes sense, sometimes shipping costs are the deciding factor between someone selling something in a week or in a year. >stopping down on a different camera, but not every lens gets to that equivalent. An interesting thing about these old Nikkor lenses is that they stop to f32, yet the newer AI ones, the so-called classics, only go to f22. Coupled that they are all-metal (no rubber rings) i feel like i am cheating because they practically have the same performance when not shooting with the sun in the frame, and even so the purple-coated ones fare decently well anyways. I remember one of the kit lenses in my Rebel (which pampered me with its 450mm equiv.) went to f45, it was a mush. But i can see the use, i want to try some food photography ala 80's, the 85-205mm is perfect for it. Shooting with very strong overhead lights at f22 makes the entire thing "glow", WB a bit on the warm side and there we go, just need a really dark table and i am set to shitpost at /retro/. >it's not something you'd describe as humid The smell and feel of recently cared leather items is just something else, it's a fragrant unique on its own and soft, somewhat oily/humid to the touch but doesn't leave stickiness in your hand. I remember buying a leather + suede jacket in an injun rez, these bastards don't even make their own stuff anymore for some reason, what they do is buy chink stuff and then have the local tanner (who doesn't tan anymore) "mod" the clothes with re-treatments like softening of the interior, re-hydrating the leather and adding some other flourishes... and then resell it for waaaay more. They did a good job, can only remember the feel of my pop's deer boots being similar to it and the whole room smelled like it. You are probably completely right in not putting the tube in it lol, can't help myself, now my lens drawer smells like rich cowboy apparel. >maybe he used some presets I am suspecting VSCO, poor fellow because it got pretty popular some months later i remember, and not with the crowd he would've liked or who knows, one never knows with those people who make a living in that seedy site :^) >maybe we're drawn to telephoto lenses as a result of being shortsighted Well, in my case my preferred focal lengths are the 35mm and wide angles (24mm and down) but they are either expensive for me or slow as nails to get sharp (f8 sometimes). I have only ever used dedicated wide angles in APS-C and only for limited times but they are fun to use and scratch my "radical" 90's conception of style. My attraction to telephoto is because i find it's much easier to compose in them and they are way cheaper than other lenses for some reason, plus i am peev, i like stealth games and God games, it is in my nature to be a creep so i cannot help myself from seeing people from far away. But now that i think of it kinda makes sense, perhaps i am fond of the telephoto but even 200mm feels close enough to be seen. Well now i am questioning my style, that is a good thing.
>>228 >I've heard the term but i am frankly a pleb with some technical aspects, i suppose that's the process of the sensor trying to make sense and allocating colors/tones that fall between in the Bayer? It's the sensor generating the colored pixels from the Bayer values, so you were close. Each pixel is interpolated from four subpixels, two green, one red and one blue. Because Foveon has every color in every pixel there's no interpolation and the image is crisper. >An interesting thing about these old Nikkor lenses is that they stop to f32, yet the newer AI ones, the so-called classics, only go to f22. Very nice. I have a zoom that reaches f/32 but only when zoomed in fully, zoomed out it's f/22 max. Watch out for diffraction, though. >Well, in my case my preferred focal lengths are the 35mm and wide angles (24mm and down) but they are either expensive for me or slow as nails to get sharp (f8 sometimes). I too am drawn to wide lenses, it's the normal ones I can't seem to enjoy much. They seem boring to me. >My attraction to telephoto is because i find it's much easier to compose in them and they are way cheaper than other lenses for some reason, plus i am peev, i like stealth games and God games, it is in my nature to be a creep so i cannot help myself from seeing people from far away. lol, makes sense
Open file (48.04 KB 900x720 1. Front Element.jpg)
Open file (78.17 KB 720x1080 2. Resting Comparison.jpg)
Open file (122.09 KB 1080x720 5. I Spy.jpg)
I expected by these days to review three lenses but it seems FedEx is a bigger jew than i thought, having been swindled by them thrice in only 4 attempts i don't know exactly what i am going to do with them other than keeping requesting refunds. But anyways, here's another lens that almost made me refund again but it had a happy ending: the 1966's Tokina-made Vivitar-branded 400mm f/5.6 in interchangeable T-mount with preset aperture design of around 18 blades, the chunky boy, the siege canon, the painkiller to my actual wanted item. Considered as one of the early super telephotos for the masses, this was also quite affordable back then compared to other lenses (cheaper than the zooms, for example) and is somewhat fast too at f5.6 considering the 200mm's were usually at f4. In design it's practically a bigger version of its little brother, the Vivitar Tokina Tele Preset 200mm f3.5, as this one also has 5 elements only and similarly placed inside the tube which can be dissembled easily, leaving the front element alone in its own piece, weighting 900g alone and accepting 82mm filters although i think it's actually bigger than that. Obviously it is front heavy as the 200mm was, the entire thing weights 1590g and it's 44cm long at rest with T-adapter, and i really sweated bullets trying to handheld it and get decent pictures even when using the cool as ice krinkel metal tripod ring as support, but that was days later because the shipping came fucked up, the seller i think shipped it to me without seeing his handlers not handling the lens well. The front cap was threaded badly and then forcefully tightened which made it hell on earth to remove, also the lens case was completely fucked inside so old dust and dried up adhesives entered the lens... plus the focus ring was busted too. I removed the cap with a screwdriver applying force between the lens and the thread gaps, something that would have undoubtedly raped a modern lens was but a scratch for this boy, thanks to its all metal sturdy construction i only bent the steel a little and removed some black paint, the cap which was also some metal thing chipped away from the force. I will always be at awe with old timey metal lenses, they were build like someone would cast a hammer or an impact tool yet there was also refined details that made it soft to the hand and appealing to the eye; Made In Japan. The giant tube 2-part construction also meant it was kinda easy cleaning the insides but there's still some dust left, i screwed down the focus ring again (after measuring it is as big as a normal prime lens is) and after horsing around via messages with the very nice seller i managed to get a refund of 7 dollarydoos... yep, this beast who usually goes by 60 to 100 was snapped at 30 monetary bucks (23 now), mainly because its focus helicoid is quite stiff and the case had a strap broken... it seems nobody wanted to deal with it for some reason despite the non-preset version selling well. Focus ring and serial number IDs this lens as being made around 1966, it's an early version with grooved verticals rather than the uniform and smooth latter designs (seen in the 200mm) so i guess i have another "rare" lens here along with the Kino Precision Pyramid Scheme with red and green numbers. We can see the size comparison in pictures 2 and 3 besides the 200mm f3.5 18 Blades and the Kino Pyramid 85-205mm, this latter one an already long stick lens yet dwarfed with the cannon in hand; resting and extended + hood positions shown. Also to note, the lens case itself is a chonker too and can very well serve as a fancy wine bottle case, shown in picture 4. So, image quality wise, i have a confession to make: I haven't shot this lens... without the Vivitar Teleconverter 3x Extender that arrived a couple of days earlier, a great irresponsability but i can't control myself, this item converted the already respectable 400mm into a 1200mm at f16, still a bit under the diffraction city limits of my 12mp FF sensor. Such a set-up shown is picture 5 sitting besides the Pyramid lined up with the ending part and my trusty 28-200mm next to the focus ring for comparison.
Open file (332.70 KB 800x800 1. Apalled Pidgey.jpg)
Open file (351.36 KB 1080x720 2. Contemplative Pidgey.jpg)
Open file (634.37 KB 1080x720 3. Compressed Blocks.jpg)
Open file (552.80 KB 1080x720 4. Delivery Man.jpg)
Open file (983.70 KB 2160x720 5. Pano.jpg)
Here's 5 images to check out this 1200mm f16 setup, shown in different contexts: 1 & 2) At "close distances" trying to catch pigeons (minimum focus distance is 6m), a problem with the performance in all of these is the indiscriminate use of sliders and curve adjustments i have to perform to remove most of the haze and lack of contrast the teleconverter has, i shot wide open too with a lens known for its spherical aberration up the wazoo but i find that not being that not much of a problem compared to the loss of contrast. Didn't help both these images were at cloudy humid days so the sky didn't give its chances. 3) At medium distance, some good old perspective compression seen here in a boring chimney roof, compressing 3 neighborhood blocks of distance with the closest chimney being about 75m from me. Here i learned a hard truth with compression and very long focals: You either shoot wide open or with a small aperture because anything done at the middle will make things visible enough but not quite sharp, giving the impression of an out-of-focus image rather than focusing in a subject (the chimmies) and making the viewer know it was that and not my ass fucking things up. Not that it was a masterpiece of composition or anything, but frankly composing with this seems like a piece of cake, most places are flattened hard and tridimentionality is forfeited unconsciously by both viewer and shooter. 4) Also at medium distance, needed a street level example, got out of the PC and got lucky this guy was waiting for an order in the sidewalk, around 60m from me. I may have used a bit too much of the clarity factor on this example, with the amounts of corrections used both in Ps and the meme processor of choice, the gaze loses its focus and one has to rest the view to recompose and redefine what one wanted to do originally, which frankly i think i didn't enough so i ended up with this which i like but maybe the back wall is a bit too rough. Still, Meme Street Photography from your living room. 5) At long distance, the Infinity Mark, showcasing here a panorama of a small hill range inside my land and a harsh reality: Heat waves will blur the view in far away landscapes, especially when the temperature was at 40+ degrees celsius with semi-cloudy light. All images featured tons of spots, probably dust from the lens, converter and sensor, and they become a bit silly to clean at times when stepping down the aperture to f32 equivalents or near. Makes me fully realize, once and for all, that mean lean zoom machines like the Nikon P1000 are not really to snap far away subjects but to look at closer ones even more closer. Cable was i think 100 and something meters from me, hill is 3.3km away. Kinda looks like an old western background scenery or maybe because it is Also to note, now that i've been editing these, is that the ruthless lifting of the contrast and such makes the sensor's noise flourish up, which is then treated too but render the image with this kind of look i cannot describe very well, it just looks like old timey imagery so with an uneducated phrase i can initially say this lens/set does give that "retro" ad look, whatever that means these days, but for me it's a feeling of mainstream photography of the 60's and 70's. It's "usable" and does the job at these public resolutions, but going above 1500px will certainly make these images start showing the creases and optical flaws. They can be printed at normal sizes and not many will bat an eye, so... still, will deliver non-converted 400mm snaps later because this is hardly a fair look into the lens. All pictures with a slight or significant crop and shot while Sitting & Sipping™ in the table against the window shown before here.
Open file (89.82 KB 1080x1080 The Secret of Mana.jpg)
So that's it for the moment, it's a painkiller lens because i was/am waiting for another lens, all of them in Nikon F are hazy and when a new one came around it was pic related; who knows why they have so much storage problems. So i jumped the gun with the 400mm, i might shoot for the 600mm but the jump doesn't make that much sense anyways as ultra telephoto becomes somewhat of a diminished returns situation. The Converter will get another section later with tests on other stuff like the Nikkor(s) and the Pyramid Portrait Tube, and probably a comparison with the Tokinas as i have the 135mm mostly unused. Feels like cheating, no single item shown has been more than 50 dollars, the 1200mm f16 combo is a 60 buy, the 600mm f11 one is a 70 one and shows plenty of detail. No shipping included in the prices tho.
>>232 That is one big lens, looks like it's 400mm in physical length besides its focal length lol. Also quite hefty. I had to remove a stuck filter once too, from a Helios. Luckily the lens itself was pretty much perfect outside of some fungus which I got rid of. >>233 It has that desaturated low contrast retro look, I get a similar thing with my 85-205mm. I like it because it makes it look pretty filmic. >heat waves Are you sure it's just that? I think it's a bit weird that the cable looks so focused, like it didn't quite reach infinity focus. Would you try some moon shots? Also will you be taking any pics with no converter? >>234 >So that's it for the moment, it's a painkiller lens because i was/am waiting for another lens, all of them in Nikon F are hazy and when a new one came around it was pic related; who knows why they have so much storage problems. Ewww that fungus looks like a damn flattened lichen lmao.
Open file (312.04 KB 1000x1500 _D7H2501.jpg)
Open file (336.44 KB 1000x1500 _D7H2503.jpg)
Open file (541.15 KB 720x960 P1010017-(2).jpg)
Open file (482.52 KB 1080x720 _D7H2855.jpg)
>>248 Hey there >400mm in physical length I didn't think about that lol, it makes sense somewhat that the lens is very rudimentary in design that it went for 40cm and then they designed glass elements in between that would make it reach a respectable f-grade/sharpness. I don't know anything about lens designs but i recall the very, very old lenses somewhat functioned with calculations like that. >It has that desaturated low contrast retro look Might as well post it now, here's a shot i took (ruthlessly edited) with the converter and the 85-205mm and the effect is doubled, cliche as it is it has that look. I wanted to do a separate post about the converter and that zoom as they were released around the same year/season so it makes sense, but i stalled it, focused more on the 200mm Nikkor and i waited for 2 other lenses to test them altogether... then one never came but two somehow did (in different versions i don't want) and i waited for the original missing one to test them ALL at once but got hit with some expenses and now i have no monies so i am waiting for a job to finally buy it. Fuck FedEx. >Are you sure it's just that? I mean the P1000 also suffers the same problems when compared near my area/climate, it's dry heat at 40+ celsius that bounces on pavement, i also felt it didn't quite reach infinity but it made sense that most things are wavy, some other pictures i took from that hill are way clearer in colder days, and things nearer than that cable have also been seen with the waves. It's just hot stuff i think. >Would you try some moon shots? Will try soon now that you mention it although i am pretty bad at it, my tripod doesn't handle the D700 without a lens so i will use a window corner along with the chinesium long legs to support the canon. >Also will you be taking any pics with no converter? That was a trip, i did take some later but i forgot which ones they were, it was mostly random clouds because around those days we had a massive spike of Jewvid-19 and couldn't go out with that missile in my hands. I can say they were much clearer, the performance is similar to the Vivitar 200mm f3,5 which makes sense. Def worth 30 bucks (shipping not included lel). Second pic (slightly edited) and third pic (unedited) here i think were from that ""shoot"", fourth pic (Stylus) is just clowning around and taking another pic of the machine. And the DoF still "pops", i was never bothered to think about those fast 400mm f2.8/600mm f4 until i grabbed this thing, makes me wonder how would one of those beasts perform in urban environmental shoots that would exploit the relatively shorter distances between buildings/subjects rather than nature pics or some sportbilder of africans attempting to dribble euro defenders. Aaand i found a pic of that, i stalked this hungry/bored worker with the converter and decided to snap him last without it, there's a massive difference taking into account i can reach the same levels without using any sliders as this is unedited too. Modded the D700 to have an external profile setting, it's a Nikon-made one that "emulates" the JPG engine of the older Pro series cameras D2x and D2xs. Inside the camera one can tune down some parameters but if you use a Nikon file (or someone else i suppose) it makes additional changes not included in the menu's UI. Better than the saturated looks the old german lad had before selling it to me, also better than the native profile. >looks like a damn flattened lichen It's in Mint condition tho :^), fuck my wallet one came in perfect condition and for very cheap and i didn't have monies either so it went away. At least i bought another camera i wanted/needed but now i realize i need another one because that supposed daily driver doesn't fit in my jeans and around here it's only 3 months a year where one uses a jacket. Still it's a pretty good camera and kinda don't want to sell it as i know it's much better than the next buy but hey, can't take pictures if you can't carry a camera right? This gearfagging feeling doesn't want to go away.
>>249 >I didn't think about that lol, it makes sense somewhat that the lens is very rudimentary in design that it went for 40cm and then they designed glass elements in between that would make it reach a respectable f-grade/sharpness. >I don't know anything about lens designs but i recall the very, very old lenses somewhat functioned with calculations like that. You know what's funny, I was just eyeballing it based on seeing it next to the 85-205mm and it turns out the lens itself is over 43cm long. It's probably not even a telephoto in the optical sense of the word (a lens physically shorter than its focal length) although I'm not sure if it's overall size or distance between first and last element. The "correct" word would be "long focus lens" but at this point telephoto has become a practical synonym even if it's somewhat of an abuse of nomenclature. >Might as well post it now, here's a shot i took (ruthlessly edited) with the converter and the 85-205mm and the effect is doubled, cliche as it is it has that look. I perceive a softness but not the desaturated look, may be because of the editing though. >I mean the P1000 also suffers the same problems when compared near my area/climate, it's dry heat at 40+ celsius that bounces on pavement, i also felt it didn't quite reach infinity but it made sense that most things are wavy, some other pictures i took from that hill are way clearer in colder days, and things nearer than that cable have also been seen with the waves. It's just hot stuff i think. Could you point to the waves specifically? I'm not doubting what you say, but my perception of it was that it looked almost like a gaussian blur aka out of focus. Not having witnessed the scene itself makes it more difficult to spot. >And the DoF still "pops", i was never bothered to think about those fast 400mm f2.8/600mm f4 until i grabbed this thing, makes me wonder how would one of those beasts perform in urban environmental shoots that would exploit the relatively shorter distances between buildings/subjects rather than nature pics or some sportbilder of africans attempting to dribble euro defenders. I think they'd be both technically impressive and aesthetically disappointing (for our tastes). The glare and field curvature tend to be very well controlled in those modern lenses. Probably not a lot different from the typical football (not talking handegg) closeup from the gigantic 4K video lenses used in sports broadcasting nowadays. >Aaand i found a pic of that, i stalked this hungry/bored worker with the converter and decided to snap him last without it, there's a massive difference taking into account i can reach the same levels without using any sliders as this is unedited too. That's impressive. >Modded the D700 to have an external profile setting, it's a Nikon-made one that "emulates" the JPG engine of the older Pro series cameras D2x and D2xs. Inside the camera one can tune down some parameters but if you use a Nikon file (or someone else i suppose) it makes additional changes not included in the menu's UI. Better than the saturated looks the old german lad had before selling it to me, also better than the native profile. Nice, I heard it really takes things up a notch. >It's in Mint condition tho :^), fuck my wallet one came in perfect condition and for very cheap and i didn't have monies either so it went away. At least i bought another camera i wanted/needed but now i realize i need another one because that supposed daily driver doesn't fit in my jeans and around here it's only 3 months a year where one uses a jacket. >Still it's a pretty good camera and kinda don't want to sell it as i know it's much better than the next buy What did you get? >hey, can't take pictures if you can't carry a camera right? I feel you, I've lately been carrying an old digishit and a disposable film one (digishit to get an idea of the exposure without wasting frames) and it's very easy to do.
Open file (218.54 KB 1500x1000 _D7H2855beeg.jpg)
Open file (134.67 KB 1500x1000 _D7H2849beeg.jpg)
Open file (868.47 KB 1280x960 1629423597989-4.jpg)
>>250 >The "correct" word would be "long focus lens" but at this point telephoto has become a practical synonym even if it's somewhat of an abuse of nomenclature. It's still very good to know this, never knew specifically when to call something telephoto in the traditional sense when photogs still used bellows and rulers to catch focus. >may be because of the editing though. The converter is a cool tool to use in close distances as it doesn't change the MFD but it's an optical rapist, the editing is pushed a lot in terms of my old sensor tech. An apt comparison is with that last image of the roof worker, that one is without (here again first pic in bigger size for better comparison) and second pic is the near previous shot ("in focus") with it. As many old timey converters do this one just zooms into the optic but does not correct much other than the bare minimum for optimal focusing, it might be useless for big megapickel cameras but for my 12mp it is handy to avoid cropping much. Flaws get more notorious, contrast falls due to cheap glass i suppose, and so on with the consequences of shooting wide open to keep things at f16 rather than f22. The coated Nikkor 200mm is more lax because i can bump that one to f5.6 for better performance, not that it needs much because at f4 it is very good. I would add that the softness is a combination of the lenses not being that sharp to begin with at base f and my relatively "conservative" approach to sharpness at least compared to the "people" i've seen in the other old place i am hesitant to visit when i do. I am not one of those "sharpness is overrated" lads but i do tend not to push it that much because most places i've used, like print places or IG/500px, often downsample and then sharpen again for good measure which fucks things up at many times, coupled that i like "airy" atmospheres i find myself rarely editing to critical detail although i did that not long ago. I do not repent for my crimes against art using Structure and Clarity sliders a bit much but i reserve that for wacky moments, i am studying to understand why that's bad but i keep seeing my past attempts and i keep liking them lol. >Could you point to the waves specifically? Sure, right now we are in the colder side of the year but at noon i might find an example to show that, still i will search again my backlog if i caught several examples from the same situation before to make the comparison. >in those modern lenses That is true although one might caught a surprise with the 80's and 90's ones like the Nikkor D or AI-S ones, but they have magic dust ED glass so they might be corrected a lot anyways. >used in sports broadcasting nowadays. lol my region still has some sort of early 2000's chinaman tech that makes things looks like a cyberpunk parody when chromatic aberration and flares appear, nobody wants to pay up to replace them as they cost the same as a starting player so we are in limbo; absurd zoom range tho. Can't whine anyways because in my place a ticket to see a game fairly close costs 3 dollars, 5 or 7 if a cool team comes in a cup game. >I heard it really takes things up a notch. It does, nothing like a real thick CFA like old digishits had but it does something special. >What did you get? Now that i think of it i have enough material to write a small review soon, still i won't make you wait it's the Olympus Stylus 1. Was on the fence with that or the Canon G1X-III but i learned with other P&S's that i do def like zooming like a mad cunt so i went with the Oly. The viewfinder is what makes it not fit in my pocket, a hefty one for a pocket camera and it's the same one as used in the EM10 and i think EM5 series which is not bad but i am feeling it buddy, this "EVFs are good" meme needed to die back in the day but can't say nowadays. Do have to say that in my little experience and by my personal tastes: The lens is glorious... or at least Oly knows how to correct it at most focal lengths because i've not delved completely yet into the RAWs. For some reason i like the technical quality better in my SOOC pictures than most of what i saw seeing samples in Flickr, Olympus certainly has my respect in terms of small-sensor clinical glass, if they go down under as a camera maker again i have no doubts their now-internal Zuiko division can make a living as a 3rd party doing macro lenses or critically sharp stuff if they are the ones doing them entirely. Here's a repost from tvch in third pic (rip dunk coffee) one of my first tests i think, a cablescape again lel, was surprised to see the camera capturing the subtle shadow play in the cables i could barely see IRL.
>>250 >I've lately been carrying an old digishit Ah yes the digishit alliance, to be fair my entry point to those bastards back there. What are you carrying? Been wanting to pounce one from two or three 20-30 dollar prospects (apart from a much newer 200 dollar one) in the mid-future now that i've seen people starting to condition the scene to start shilling for them due to 90's nostalgia in artsy circles, that one dude in the /dst/ thread isn't wrong at all: Digi P&S's might very well become the next hipster fad like the cheapo film ones that were once joked about.
>>251 Hell why i didn't think of it, here's an unedited version of The Delivery Man you saw earlier here >>233, a glimpse on what the usual images look like before taking a Photoshop therapy. Also in second pic an example of what our broadcasting cameras look like, in ours at night you can see the width a big wider even and without cropping like this one.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?