>>4305840
For $100 more than the 50 f/1.8 Z you can buy a used 300 f/4 PF in F mount

File: IMG_1845.jpg (42 KB, 451x451)

42 KB JPG

>>4305843
>f-4

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	451
Image Height	451
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4305844
if you dont want to be poor than you can get the f/2.8 for about $5k more

>>4305840
Lots of cheap good telephotos around. 300 PF is excellent, super small and lightweight, f/4 is fine. Would be a great travel lens. The 180 f/2.8 AI-S is an absolutely beautiful lens, small, built in hood, beautifully damped focus ring, sharp as hell, characterful.

A 50 is a great all around lens though, and there's plenty of good ones to choose from, especially for Z system, where you can adapt anything.

What's your financial budget, what's your size/weight budget, what's your use case? There's not really much to go on here other than "I want to spend money on another lens that isn't a 24-medium-tele."

>>4305844
>implying he’ll ever actually put a 2.8 tele to good use anyhow
Nice meme. This place would probably barely exceed the capabilities of those f/8 canon teles, nevermind faster glass lmao.

>>4305856
Oh wow the capabilities of f2.8
A blurrier background
A lower ISO
Thats advanced photography right there

Its banal. And hideously overpriced.

>>4305844
>>4305843
alternatively if you want you can get used sigma 135mm f/1.8 arts for about the same price

>>4305864
You only need a 2.8 telephoto if you're shooting sports in low light, like football, american football, volleyball, basketball, etc. There's a real need and use case here.
It's sort of pointless recommending lenses to someone who hasn't specified what they want to use it for, or posted any of their own photography, or others' photography that illustrates what they're looking for. Pointless thread unless OP comes back.

Is a 50/2.8 macro lens a meme? Sounds like a good idea for close up nature shots, product photography and portraits.

>>4305868
>You DUN NEED
You don't need anything. You can shoot a nighttime football game on a coolpix p1000.

Nobody needs shit, period. Nobody even needs photography. The ISO/Bokeh is a flexible decision. He's right. It is banal. And it is hideously overpriced. All of your opinions outside of this derive from your response to the price of the lens. If it was cheaper you would give as many shits as this:
>ok wow f2.8 so there's more bokeh and you can lower the iso or raise the shutter speed maybe? great ok.
kind of like how people react to cheaper lenses where it's like "wow it's f1.8 very nice i dont care you enjoy that".

Instead you act like having more bokeh is "advanced photography" well sir that's just price cope.

>>4305880
If a 300mm f2.8 were $800 no one would care at all. Nikon needs to fix this.

>>4305868
You don't even need it, it's one extra stop and sensor noise performance is so good these days it's just not worth worrying about. And AF tracking is so good that you don't need to worry about having extra sensitive points at f/2.8 like you did with DSLRs.

>>4305877
Go for something a bit longer for a macro if you're not going to be slapping a ring light on the end. Even then it's nice not to have to get so close to stuff. Something in the 90-105mm range.

>>4305904
You don’t need it
Other people might. Lenses that arent four-five figures also benefit from stopping down (less hazy).

Btw the non-vr niggor af-s 300mm f2.8 is like $500

>>4305919
>non-vr niggor af-s 300mm f2.8 is like $500
and its a D lens which wont autofocus with a Z body.

>>4305923
Autofocus is a crutch

>>4305924
May was well buy that 400mm f/3.5 AI-S that’s on eBay rn. I actually shot with a 200mm f/2 AI-S lens in college… great lens, was fun following the action by fingertip alone.

>>4305840
I had this exact lens and didn't really like it. It's sort of sterile and things can look like paper cutouts sometimes.

the 35, 40, and 85 are very nice tho

>>4305844
f4 at 300mm is perfect, retard

>>4305843
>used 300mm f4
for what?

>>4306550
https://www.ebay.com/itm/145612613344

>>4305864
with twice the light coming in through the lens you can rely on your AF system when there's half as much light
you can also use half the shutter speed for the same amount of noise
you also typically get higher quality glass, which is sharper, has less distortion and less chromatic aberration
all of those can be very helpful if you need to take pictures of things that move fast in the evening instead of comparing numbers online

>>4306645
>well ackschully
good job anon being so fucking retarded that you dont think anyone else understands how exposure work. surely you must have mastered photography if you feel the need to point this out, you fedora wearing faggot

>>4306654
Your anger over this has nothing to do with anything except the price of the lens.

>>4306655
i'm not even that anon, and go back to red dit you cock sucking queer

>>4306654
Exposure is different than light transmittance.
f1.8 gives you better AF in low light, once focused you can then use whatever shutter speed/exposure for the shot.
Two entirely different things.
Fast lenses matter.
In the past, they delivered brighter viewfinders since they were optical, but these days you just dial up the gain to produce a noisy/bright electronic viewfinder but the benefit of "fast" glass is still highly relevant when it comes to autofocus systems.

Birdfaggot lenses at f5.6 and such work in daylight, but ~f2 is nice for everything else, even if you still plan to shoot at f8 for a deeper (not bokehfag) DOF.

>>4306673
Fast lenses only benefit SLR autofocus. Mirrorless focus stopped down up to a camera/firmware specific limit (usually between f2.8 and f5.6), even if you turn preview off.

They are awesome for actually taking photos of small, distant fast moving objects though.

>>4306679
With meme narrow DOF, yeah maybe f1.2 or such can be a problem. Stopping to f2.8 for AF assuming there's enough light probably isn't a bad idea.
In low light, I would be surprised if they don't allow wider apertures though. Cameras usually pick an aperture and crank ISO up to whatever and AF based on that, in the old days people didn't realize this with DSLRs but this leads to flashes in EVFs or the LCD momentarily showing a brighter image as you engage the AF, if lighting isn't good.

>They are awesome for actually taking photos of small, distant fast moving objects though.
Or just really anything, another prime benefit of a big element and wide aperture is you can effectively see through some objects, like fine mesh screens, screens, chainlink fences, or a dirty window.
Obviously you aim to not have to shoot through such things but sometimes you just have to, and the difference between f2 and f5.6 is quite extreme, it's kind of exponentially better, to a ridiculous degree. Even f2.8 isn't as good, but this is a niche use. If you're not wide as f2.8, then f4 or f4.5 or anyhting simply doesn't really cut it and you can live without trying to blurbust through obstacles. Nice feature to have, if you have it, though.

Anyone with a fast prime can try it out. Infinity focus, set auto ISO, set like 1/250 shutter and go to f1.4 then f4 with a pencil 6" from your lens. At f1.4 it will be totally gone, at f4 it'll be more noticeable and a distraction but not too bad and f5.6 (which most cheap teles go to, or higher at the end if a zoomer) and above you can no longer really do it well.

>>4306679
Nikon and Fuji will focus at the set aperture. Sony has different settings, one of which does focus wide open. Unsure about Canon, but looks like they also can focus wide open.

>>4307240
Sony focuses stopped down as much as possible in af-c and slightly less in af-s, which is like the opposite of what you should do. Unsure about canon but it should be stopped down especially when using fast ef lenses.

>>4305840
>Good telephotos have priced me out
Get used to it, you're in a premium system. Or buy an FTZ and find deals on AF-S lenses. Unfortunately other people are also doing this. If money was an issue you should've gotten a D500, 10-20mm AF-P, 18-50mm AF-P, 200-500mm AF-S, 35mm f/1.8. Maybe some vintage lenses like the 105mm ai for portraits. AF-S DX lenses are a steal.

>>4307343
I dont know why poor people dont buy sony cameras
>THE RAW VIGNETTING CORRECTION
You're saving money for specs. Just turn it off. Does the a7iv have separate lens correction settings for video and photo?
>THE BABY MOUNT
Oh well nothings perfect + canon RF lenses vignette just as much and people pay out the ass for that shit
>TAMRON/SIGMA LENSES ARENT AS SHARP/FAST FOCUSING THO
Big deal that's why the a7iii and a7iv have fewer megapixels and aren't as fast as the a1/a9.
>COLOR SCIENCE?
Apparently most people think its fine.

>>4307255
My A7R IV will focus wide open in AF-C. The aperture will close if I'm in Av and stop it down, but it'll open right back up when it goes to focus. It will then stop down again once it has acquired tracking (it appears to be to the set aperture though, not all the way or to a particular value).

>>4307347
why cant fucking nikon figure this out fucking nikon faggots fuck

I feel weird for always finding 50 a little too tight.

>>4307402
This is why everyone is into 40 and 35 these days. I've walked around all day with a 120mm equivalent prime and been happy personally. With ISO performance there's little reason not to just use a standard zoom f/4 though.

>>4307407
>With ISO performance there's little reason not to just use a standard zoom f/4 though.
I'm not one to shit on f/4 zooms, but 2+ stops better noise performance is far from nothing especially when it's really dark and you get into the extreme ISOs. Also depth of field, 2/3 of a stop going from f/1.8 to f/1.4 doesn't matter to many people never mind 1/3 of a stop from f/1.4 to f/1.2 yet some people will pay the money and take the extra weight for the shallower depth of field. f/4 to even an f/2 prime is a pretty big difference.

>>4307407
ISO performance has not changed for shit since 2013. every camera still looks like shit over ISO 1600 tops. MFT is already going to shit at ISO 400.

>>4307419
eh, 800-1600 is still pretty usable (yes even on mft, although my experience is the older 16mp ones which are definitely not going to shit at 400- maybe the newer ones are worse?) but yeah anything past that is junk unless you're using stable diffusion AI-making-noise-into-imagined-detail shit, and i'm convinced manufacturers only even bother including 3200+ in a "we trained him wrong intentionally, as a joke" manner

>>4307466
3200+ is for journalism/snapshits. Even 400+ is pushing it unless you have a z6ii/xpro then 800-1000 is fine. Not fine art photography to print big, hang up, and say “yeah baby”. That stuff all happens at <ISO 100. Ideally <ISO 50. On medium format. Always has. Always will.

>>4307492
>Canon shooter here who has been unsatisfied with APS-C 100 ISO at times
Is Z6ii really good at 400 ISO?
What's the secret?

>>4307524
The Z6II's second gain stage is at ISO 800 so it cleans up to have similar noise to ISO 400. It remains better at high ISOs 3200, 6400, 12800, etc than the 45mp models. The secret is somewhat the signal processing arrangement, but mostly the larger pixels gathering more light, so it doesn't lose as much color info at high ISOs compared to a higher resolution camera.

File: _DSC9635.jpg (737 KB, 3238x2160)

737 KB JPG

>Everything looks shit over 1600
>Even 400 is pushing it
You guys either have ridiculously high standards, in which case I hope you only ever shoot at 100 on the latest and greatest full frame on a tripod stopped down to the optimum aperture, or you're using decade old crop bodies. You need to stop caring so much. I have no qualms going up to even 12800 if I need to, most situations are 6400 and below so I don't care at all.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM3 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:24 12:46:31
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Brightness	-0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3238
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: _DSC9635crop.jpg (1.31 MB, 3819x2037)

1.31 MB JPG

>>4307573
And a 100% crop before you argue that noise reduction has killed all the detail. Sure there'd be more at 100, but that looks like plenty to me.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM3 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	55 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:24 12:46:31
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Brightness	-0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3819
Image Height	2037
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4307573
>>4307576
I agree with everything you wrote, and that is a handsome lil man. Please tell him I said so.

File: Z72_2238.jpg (2.29 MB, 3000x4500)

2.29 MB JPG

>>4307573
vgh, ISO 2 million, the photo is ruined

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7_2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	4500
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Image Width	3000
Image Height	4500
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4305935
>things can look like paper cutouts sometimes
What exactly do you mean here? I’m planning on getting a Z7 and this lens amount a couple of others, and all I’ve heard about it up until now is that’s it’s crazy performance for the money.

>>4307617
I looked back at photos and realize that post was literal cope because I regretted selling it and buying the shitty fucking 40mm f2 which is retarded and has a wavy field of focus

>>4307573
>>4307576
I can tell your cat has had enough of your shit.

File: _DSC9564.jpg (342 KB, 1441x2160)

342 KB JPG

>>4308353
How dare you

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM3 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	16 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:12 21:46:18
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2500
Brightness	0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1441
Image Height	2160
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4307621
Based honest anon

>>4305935
Sounds like user error to me.
Care to post some examples of what you didn't like, and where the 35, 40, and 85 are doing better for you?

>>4308419
He already said it was user error (cope over selling the lens)

>>4308419
The user error was selling a perfectly good lens for a shitty one because I was unhappy with a month of no photos worth keeping

Fucking awful neurosis never do this

>>4308442
Ah gear comes and goes. As long as you didn't eat too much of a loss on it, don't beat yourself up. No shame in selling gear to try other gear. You come back around to the right stuff for you in the end. Whatever helps tame the mania in the end haha.

>>4308421
Oh he's >>4307621
>>4308442
Sounds like regret, but I'm still curious.
What did you mean originally with things being sterile or like cardboard cutouts?
Did it do anything bad to prevent you buying it again?

>>4308448
It was pure copium

50mm lenses do look a little flat sometimes but that's just because of the perspective

>>4308450
Define “flat” in objective terms.

>>4308458
Flat perspective.

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

>>4307573
I took photos at a coworker's concert at a bar, and the lighting was so shitty that I had to shoot at ISO 8000 (also so I could use a higher shutter speed for certain moments). I came out of my comfort zone with lower ISOs and learned to love the grain.

>>4308465
>If you don't get it, you don't get it.
Ah ok so it’s schizo nonsense like “3dpop” and “microcontrast”, thanks for clearing that up.

>>4308691
>he doesn't get "flat perspective"
actual ngmi

>>4308698
Prove that you “get” it, describe it in objective terms not feelings.

>>4308740
When the perspective in the photograph feels flattening.

>>4308753
>feels
Back in my day trolling was a art

>>4308755
Is that how you feel?

>>4308753
I thought it was when you were flattened by the perspective.

>>4308761
What about when you flatten the perspective?

>>4305935
My 200mm f1.8 is amazingly sharp and makes ordinary things look great