[Sticky] Submit your glamour shots!

@neomr2

Couldn't you just clearcoat it to prevent the epoxy gel coat from yellowing?

  Tested out my Voigtlander 28mm lens. 

 Testing out a new lens Tamron 45 f1.8 SP . I actually bought this lens back in 2016 when it was introduced and even though It performed exceptionally well I returned it to purchase something else.  I have been thinking of this lens since because it was the best lens I have ever come across including Zeiss and Leica.  New this lens was $600 but on an Amazon warehouse deal I got it for $250. 

I have been around a lot of high quality and low quality lenses.  The image quality this lens produces is up there with a $7,000 Leica lens made for those rich snobs.  What makes it great is the sharpness wide open and its impressionist Monet backgrounds.  There is a lot of hype in the lens industry and sometimes you get something that shouldn't exist at its price point.  

Testing out my Canon Fisheye.  I had use 35mm mode otherwise there were major obstructions. 

More tests.  

 Russian Helios 58mm f2  .  Picked up this lens for $76. It goes to show you that cheap vintage lenses have more character than expensive new ones. 

@dev

I feel that. I've got an old slide telephoto sigma zoom beta that I practically got for free bundled with a nikon n80 and it takes some very nice macro shots. If I can find some I'll post them up. Only downside is it has a scratch on one of the elements that is noticeable in certain lighting.

Posted by: @ria

@dev

I feel that. I've got an old slide telephoto sigma zoom beta that I practically got for free bundled with a nikon n80 and it takes some very nice macro shots. If I can find some I'll post them up. Only downside is it has a scratch on one of the elements that is noticeable in certain lighting.

   Love to see them.  Today I purchased another vintage lens. Auto Sears 50 F1.4. Sears didn't make it but it was made for Sears back in the day. 

  From what I know about vintage lenses they can be amazing on digital cameras and in many ways better then modern lenses because they have character but only a few of the many. Not much is known about what is good as enthusiasts have been going though so many variations throughout the years panning for gold. Now that a lot of it has been cataloged some of these lenses have gone up in value.  I was fortunate to get the best version of that Russian lens that was built at the better factory.  In time these lenses will be sucked up from all of the estate sales and then the prices will go up.    

 Back in the day they were all about character for lens design because they have some lenses with 13 to 20 aperture blades.    

20 blade would make for some cool lense flare!

The sigma is 6 so normal hexagon flare

Posted by: @ria

20 blade would make for some cool lense flare!

The sigma is 6 so normal hexagon flare

Unfortunately some of these vintage lenses have horrible lens flare or interesting lens flare. This is where modern lenses have improved but you lose interesting flare effects. 

Those higher  aperture blade lenses can make for some round bokeh balls.  The lens that I purchased does something a little different, it makes soap bubble bokeh. This was made famous by a German company called Meyer optik görlitz. Those vintage lenses shot though the roof In the used market and were in demand so much so a company decided to have a kick starter campaign to revive these lenses for a hefty price.  

This cheap Sears lens does the same thing. I will probably double my investment in a few years. 

The 50mm f/1.2 AIS has 9 blades and REALLY pleasant bokehballs. https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12.htm

It is a nice lens. I have seen pictures from it. I like the 58mm version better. 

Watch out for Kenrockwell, he is universally not liked in photography especially for his ethics. There is a thing he does which is to push controversial wrong information or bad advise to be popular. You would think that it would limit his views but it only emboldens his popularity. It use to be that they thought his advise came from a place of ignorance but it turns out he trolls to get his name out there.  Unfortunately he is not the only one that does it, Tony Northrup and his wife do the same thing and get money from being shills.  They only care about themselves and the money they make from being reviewers while they are dangerous for photography when it comes to people that not very knowledgeable that want to learn. They do have a following but often their followers get adversarial and ultimately embarrassed when they repeat misinformation.  

I have had a few photographers recently pull sour grapes on my choice in going medium format when they felt full frame would do. When I asked them why they choose full frame over crop when crop would do and they had no answer.  I gave one person the long version of my reasoning and all of a sudden his choice in camera was due to  his back issues.  There is always a pissing contest with gear but in the end cost doesn't dictate result unless you know how to use the gear to your advantage.  I seen this fascinating documentary about poor Cuban photographers that have nothing but a beat up film camera  and the stuff they do  with what they have in terms of lighting is amazing. 

Didn't know that about ken rockell. I learned alot about camera settings when I was starting (aperature, shutter speed, iso, pushing and pulling, multi exposures) just from browsing his site and reading captions. Guys who sold me my camera reccomended the site.

Posted by: @ria

Didn't know that about ken rockell. I learned alot about camera settings when I was starting (aperature, shutter speed, iso, pushing and pulling, multi exposures) just from browsing his site and reading captions. Guys who sold me my camera reccomended the site.

 He has got a bad rap from the photo community.  He is still very  popular especially when camera blogs came along and people were in the market for gear because  the whole reviewer thing was in its infancy. Not all of his stuff is bad as he documents with great organization and pictures but his opinion or better yet contraction is  troubling. Usually reviewers will get a loaner camera that gets passed around but what Ken does is buy equipment for the purposes of reviews, then returns it and worst of all admits to it. I have returned stuff but only if Im not satisfied with what I purchased. I know people in the past that would buy a camcorder from Best-buy for vacation and then return it when they come back and I find it disgusting. They have rental service for this kind of thing.  

A lot of the other sites like DP review also messed up photography because they pushed people to pixel peep and they were eventually known as measure batters.  Eventually what ended up happening is everyone wanted lenses that were sharp, free of CA and it set off a boom of high element count lenses that ended up looking clinical with low color saturation and contrast.  It also set off a new megapixel war with shrinking pixel pitches and causing noise and aliasing effects. 

The big thing these days is not many manufactures make cameras to take pictures. They make a video cameras that takes pictures. They have their priorities all screwed up with videographers dictating the terms that compromise photographers.  

I don't know anything about him, just posted the first link I found googling the lens for specs for what it's worth.

Posted by: @haloruler64

I don't know anything about him, just posted the first link I found googling the lens for specs for what it's worth.

Good you are better off. I had to undo a lot of what he said to others I know when I have a conversation were someone tells me shooting RAW is a waste.