Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dat new lens tho
#1
85-205mm, 3.8f
M42 mount
UV filter included

I've bought a M42 to Nikon F adapter (with infinite zoom lens), and decided I needed some fancy more lenses.

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/QtfFq4I.jpg[/img]

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/nrGc4eb.jpg[/img]

Bought it together with a 2x teleconverter for 30 euros.

I also got a 400mm supertele lens that has a borked mount for free, which my dad's going to fix tomorrow.
He's also given me three of his own M42 lenses which he used on his old practika camera.

Then this weekend I'm going to get another lens, a 55mm with 1.4f (!!!). Also for 30 euros.

I also bought a 52mm UV filter that fits on three of my lenses.

That means 6 new lenses + a 2x teleconverter + two UV filters for less than 100 euros.

8)
Reply
#2
pretentious pics or riot
Reply
#3
i dont know what any of that is but nice
[Image: 929bfaccc0e130bd8fdb925412a227f2.png]
Reply
#4
SDC Wrote:pretentious pics or riot

tonight, when I have my adapter
Reply
#5
i've got a 70-300 for free for anyone who has a minolta/sony body
<t></t>
Reply
#6
400mm is no overkill at all what are you even talking about

[img width=800]http://i.imgur.com/4qcJwF5.jpg[/img]
Reply
#7
Alright so the 400mm has a T2 mount, for which I'm going to buy a T2 > M42 adapter so I can still use the 2x teleconverter for it.

Also made some pics:

[img width=1200]http://i.imgur.com/EbkRp6M.jpg[/img]

[img width=1200]http://i.imgur.com/GsxDFzw.jpg[/img]

[img width=1200]http://i.imgur.com/ixR0ZfT.jpg[/img]

Top two were shot with the bottom lens, bottom pic was shot with a 28mm 2.8f, which gives very nice results.
Reply
#8
holy shitdicks that looks nice
Reply
#9
idk, for some reason those pictures don't look as sexy as I thought they would.
[Image: 929bfaccc0e130bd8fdb925412a227f2.png]
Reply
#10
Maxwell_Edison Wrote:idk, for some reason those pictures don't look as sexy as I thought they would.

It's a lens from the 1970s.

Ofc the images won't be as good as from a 12,000 dollar lens.
Reply
#11
Yannic Wrote:
Maxwell_Edison Wrote:idk, for some reason those pictures don't look as sexy as I thought they would.

It's a lens from the 1970s.

Ofc the images won't be as good as from a 12,000 dollar lens.

O.  I don't know much about lenses so i just saw that it was bigger than my dick and assumed that meant it was good
[Image: 929bfaccc0e130bd8fdb925412a227f2.png]
Reply
#12
Maxwell_Edison Wrote:
Yannic Wrote:
Maxwell_Edison Wrote:idk, for some reason those pictures don't look as sexy as I thought they would.

It's a lens from the 1970s.

Ofc the images won't be as good as from a 12,000 dollar lens.

O.  I don't know much about lenses so i just saw that it was bigger than my dick and assumed that meant it was good

It is.

The zoom is amazing.

You'll just get loads of fuzzy shit, lens flares, chromatic aberration, etc, that kind of stuff. Especially cause this was a basic consumer lens.

The thing that makes it good is that I get amazingly high zoom at an amazingly low price.
Reply
#13
[img width=1400]http://i.imgur.com/lMNeJK4.jpg[/img]
Reply
#14
if you ignore that the pictures have a little bit of noise, they actually look pretty great
Reply
#15
Behold: the moon

[img width=1200]http://i.imgur.com/7a6qthl.jpg[/img]
Reply
#16
hot like you
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)