File: 1747913818132731.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

Somewhat related, I recently purchased my first vintage lens - SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4, 7 element - and it's been alot of fun just testing it at home. Even just holding it up to the lens mount - no converter yet - I've found that the image quality is comparable or better than my two lenses, Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 or Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. Given that I'm a poorfag, what would be some other vintage primes I could try? One of my concerns with them is that I do most of my photography while traveling and I don't want to be lugging kilos of lenses around.


>>4498027
Forgot to say that I'll be posting exif for each because I believe there's no embed now.
OP image
1/80
5.6
iso2500

Pic related
1/5000
6.3
iso500

File: 1768069354077675.jpg (4 MB)

4 MB JPG

1/320
4
400

File: 1744874577833754.jpg (4.5 MB)

4.5 MB JPG

1/30
4
3200
This one was taken handheld from a car with no light source apart from flash

File: 1741942137227202.jpg (4 MB)

4 MB JPG

1/320
8
500

File: 1748659507758383.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

1/200
8
400

File: 1743612222320865.jpg (4.1 MB)

4.1 MB JPG

I should also mention I've exported these at 66.67% downscale 95 jpeg quality to hopefully show the lack of sharpness, focus etc. I usually export at 25% downscale to help obscure these.

1/60
6.3
2500

File: 1770194982940231.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

1/250
9
250

File: 1761960575376217.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

1/200
9
500

File: 1742228766740345.jpg (4.3 MB)

4.3 MB JPG

1/60
6.3
2500

File: 1766742218262227.jpg (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB JPG

1/250
6.3
200

File: 1740389704241891.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

1/160
8
1000

File: 1763035958654641.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

1/250
10
500

File: 1746194055598208.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

1/100
6.3
800

File: 1750552444616784.jpg (4.2 MB)

4.2 MB JPG

1/160
8
800

File: 1760433796260849.jpg (4.2 MB)

4.2 MB JPG

1/100
6.3
800

File: 1767715962602552.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

1/160
8
640

File: 1748968522665523.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

1/200
7.1
2500

File: 1764781642408416.jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

1/400
8
200

File: 1764703566153086.jpg (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB JPG

1/100
4.5
1600

File: 1769176054336523.jpg (4.8 MB)

4.8 MB JPG

1/125
7.1
1000

File: 1764302755843980.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

1/125
16
200

File: 1754645471998084.jpg (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB JPG

1/160
9
250

File: 1743257646939857.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

1/125
8
160

File: 1757560966615095.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

1/320
8
160

File: 1743332089560100.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

1/200
7.1
500

File: 1742266111039239.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

1/100
9
320

File: 1740206846154225.jpg (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB JPG

1/400
8
200

File: 1753994402028332.jpg (4.3 MB)

4.3 MB JPG

1/320
8
250

File: 1765783357016568.jpg (4.9 MB)

4.9 MB JPG

1/80
5.6
1250

This was taken in Singapore and my lens fogged up harshly when I took my camera out

File: 1763113596939313.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

1/1000
8
250

File: 1764107085978132.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

1/250
7.1
400

File: 1755181566763127.jpg (3.6 MB)

3.6 MB JPG

1/60
5.6
2000

File: 1746434822117468.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

1/200
9
400

File: 1761988455836498.jpg (3.1 MB)

3.1 MB JPG

1/60
22
250

File: 1752069761891398.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

1/400
13
640

That's all

>>4498054
Man I like this photo but the stairs pull your eyes away from the subject which sucks. I think that red and white foreground element and just the tent guy and bicycle guy would have made a better photo?

Like if you had taken it from lower so the red and white thing would take up more of the frame cutting out the water and stairs element.

>>4498057
Again I want to like this picture, but what am I meant to focus on? The colors are nice, but my eye is drawn to the space above the chair stack.

I think you have a great eye for color and subject, but composition is your failure point. I do like a few of your photos though, like >>4498037 >>4498038 >>4498049 >>4498062

>>4498029
honestly op try different lenses

its not your body unless the sensor is aged/damaged where the camera cant do accurate awb or your autofocus isnt where it should be

the problem is that you went nearly 15 years without a single good lens or even a prime, just a soft as hell telezoom and a wide angle zoom. pick up a 50mm f1.8 ef for starters. fortunately you have a dslr so you can aquire shit cheap.

>>4498027
whats the first image of?

>>4498059
this is good

>>4498027
Don't shoot in manual do it in P. You can change a bit without messing things up. And try a different focus mode like wide continuous if you aren't on that

>>4498059
The guy doesn't stick out, blends in with the back thing beside his face that's the same colour. Bad photo

>>4498027
Here is some feedback for you on the most worthy pictures.
>>4498047
Best picture overall in the thread. I would have gone for a tighter framing, as there are interesting things going on that take up too little space in the frame: the women in matching garments, the interesting white headdress, the lanterns. However, the foreground and background fire is a great composition.
>>4498049
Nice colors and sense of depth to be had in this scene but I would have shot it from a different position/angle. Hard to say without having been there.
>>4498050
Interesting concept. Needs a subject in the far doorframe (and take a few steps forward to to tighten the framing) to make it really good though.
>>4498060
This scene has huge potential but the picture is mediocre. I would have used a longer focal length and directed the viewer closer to the interesting light and shadow on the right side of the mountain.

File: 1751839970005056.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

Thank you everyone for the replies. I really appreciate getting unfiltered feedback as I don't have any friends into similar hobbies.
>>4498097
>>4498098
I imagine you could use the wall features as framing elements if they were symmetrical but I see what you mean with the stairs. I wonder if taking it lower, while removing the stairs, would have the depth changing too quickly with no middle point between the red and white part and the subjects? Chairs I fully understand. >>4498053
I think this has a similar issue where it's a scene with potential but there are comp issues

>>4498099
Yeah, I'm just learning now with the Pentax that I got that I can get nice crisp images if I hit the focus, pic rel. Both lenses were gifts and I had never looked beyond them, again I lack friends into this hobby.
>your autofocus isnt where it should be
This is something I've had issues with. I'm not sure why, but overtime the autofocus has become worse; slower, and often failing to work, in live view mode. I found a setting where it switches to viewfinder to focus then back to liveview, but this still takes a couple of seconds and makes composing difficult especially if I'm walking around rather than in an environment where I can control everything. I would like to get a new body because of this, and also because I think a mirrorless would be more practical for travel due to smaller size and weight. Wrestling with autofocus and other settings can detract from enjoyment of travel
>50mm f1.8 ef
Thanks; still worth getting even with the Pentax I just got?

>>4498106
A moving sculpture at the Singapore Artscience museum. I can't find info about it on the site but the photo was taken in late 2022 if you want to look further.

>>4498140
I probably could've moved more to his left as well, again a case of an interesting subject but struggling with equipment therefore not composing properly. I can probably recover it a little bit by lightening him up and darkening the bag.

File: 1755173193527194.jpg (4.3 MB)

4.3 MB JPG

>>4498187
>Hard to say without having been there.
I don't remember it too well myself, I believe it was an old printing press from the early 1900s and there wasn't much light in the room. Here's another pic of the same machine unedited, just increased exposure
>Needs a subject in the far doorframe
Would've liked to, but I was alone there. Do you think it's OK to cut off the ground in the immediate foreground by stepping forward?
>right side of the mountain
I think I see what you mean, that the scene is carrying the photo but there's nothing special about the photo itself. Looking at my files, I have dozens of photos of this scene but none focusing on that valley... Fortunately I live in the same country so it's reasonably accessible.

>>4498274
You could AI the white tiled wall to continue behind his head

>>4498055
Cutie

>>4498027
Hi I'm one of those oldfags here who started out in the film era vintage lenses. There's not many that I really recommend anymore. They have weird looking geometry when you take a photo and oddball bokeh. Not very many I can hardly recommend.

The Sonnars from Zeiss, (yeah I know, there's the Russian versions the East German version, they're all copies of this design.) Are nice. The balance speed with good management of the characteristics of the system. My 250 mm on my Hasselblad is a great lens. Just has a focus problems which you can easily remedy with a close-up lens.

One that IS great are the Distagons, esp the 35 f/1.4, 28mm f/2.0 and the 21mm f/2.8. That last one is the only one I bought specifically for my Canon 6D Mark II. The 35mm f/2.8 is nice but a bit slow. The 35mm f/2.8 PC is nice for correcting perspective, but not very useful in this Photoshop age.

>>4498712
That being said, the stuff you find from Pentax especially in and around the normal focal range from about 20 mm up to 135 are excellent lenses. Just be sure to test the lens out for proper mechanics and cleanliness on the inside from fungus and excessive dust. A little dust is normal on those lenses by the time they are this old.

Adapting other lenses is hit or miss though. You first have to find the lens and then a way to adapt it to your system and that can be a lot of work for not very much if any difference.

The photos you show are mostly good, you just need to pay attention to the framing of the subject. I find the era of just using a short Zoom on my camera instead of a prime has made me lazy and I just zoom to get the look I want rather than move around.