answers: 11

  1. Dmitriy
    13.02.2022

    If you can still shoot old staffers or moderate telephotos, then old wide-angles, zooms, powerful telephotos remarkably demonstrate progress in photo optics. And all the more strange today's prices for this junk look.

    Reply

    • Trueash
      14.02.2022

      You can shoot everything. The main thing is to be able to.
      https://youtu.be/vIoNFi8_AjA

      Reply

      • Jea reth
        14.02.2022

        You can shoot for everything - this is true, but this is only half the truth. It usually sounds completely: you can shoot everything, but not everything can be beautifully shot.

        Reply

      • Joe
        14.02.2022

        There is no universal concept of “beautiful”. Beauty is subjective and you cannot measure it in a way that is the same for all viewers. Therefore, “beautiful” can be removed even through a hole in a tin can, all people are different, there are connoisseurs of such a photograph.
        Moreover, in some cases, the task of obtaining a “beautiful” frame is not worth it at all - for example, if you need to photograph documents with small text, and the pictures should only allow such text to be read, beauty is not required from such photographs.
        “To be able” from the comment above is also not a panacea.
        Just the tools used should be appropriate for the task.

        Reply

      • Jea reth
        15.02.2022

        That's all I meant

        Reply

      • Trueash
        15.02.2022

        >>Just the tools used should be appropriate for the task.
        That's exactly what I meant. I just noticed that the notorious “quality” of optics often comes down to a couple of criteria: “Is it sharp? does it focus quickly? - that is, what you need for a reportage and equally “beautiful” wedding photos. Well, if macro or landscape - why is there autofocus at all? Why super-fast autofocus or edge-to-edge razor sharpness in studio portraiture? Well, and so on ...

        Reply

  2. spitzer
    26.02.2022

    24 3.5 low aperture .. seriously ??

    and who has it high at 24mm? and at what price?

    Reply

    • Rodion Eshmakov
      26.02.2022

      Yes, low. This takumar is on the secondary market for about the same price as the ancient Vivitar 24/2. And it costs about a third to a quarter of the price of a used Samyang 24/1.4 or a new Viltrox 24/1.8. Needless to say, how different will be the sensations from using the old dark takumar and the high-aperture modern fix?

      Reply

      • spitzer
        13.05.2023

        speech, then for the mirror widths, pentax fa * 24/2 does not count, it is awesome and hellishly expensive, Vivitar 24/2 was scolded well like 28/2 (but this is not accurate), and in comparison with the BZK of course 3.5 is dark , but the BZK has its own pontius of lordship, and f2 is already dark there

        Reply

    • Dmitry Kostin
      14.05.2023

      Offhand from inexpensive:
      Sigma AF 24mm f/1.8 EX DG ASPHERICAL

      Reply

  3. Roma
    02.07.2022

    Takumar decent lenses. They are simple, not confused, and not expensive for a high level, but their level is high!!!!

    Reply

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer