What's the most expensive lens you've ever paid full price for or bought brand new?
Pic related for me.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi
<This.
AF makes me mad from time to time.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2013:02:13 14:19:58 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 900
>look what I once paid money for
The most expensive lens I've bought
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 530 Image Height 265 Scene Capture Type Standard
The 24-35 f/2 I was talking about in the other thread. Selling the 18-35 f/1.8 and old 10-20 f/3.5-4 I wasn't using anymore to afford it desu, but at 888€ it's still a fuckload of money for me.
haven't bought a single lens brand new
>>2823186
>bought brand new
I got a 70-200 2.8 II L as a gift. Most expensive lens i've bought NEW is a 50 1.8.
Most expensive lens i've bought is a used 17-40 F4.
>>2823242
Did you suck a dick for the "gift"
>>2823249
No, I finished college.
>>2823264
>i went to school and did homework and got a piece of paper and also a lens
I hope you went to school for something useful.
>>2823268
Shut the FUCK up
>>2823242
The canon 50 1.8 is also the only one i've bought new since its basically the same price used
sigma 24mm 1.4 art. close second: sigma 70-200 2.8 os used from a guy who needed to pay rent. i wont break the 1K mark.
>>2823268
Someone didn't get a graduation gift.
Or never graduated
>>2823186
Nikkor 85mm 1.8g
>>2823201
Yes, that is the point of this thread.
>>2823349
Me too but it is an awesome lens. My best one.
efs 10-18, 200 quid new
I think my 24mm TS-E II was about $2700 iirc. And the fucking autofocus hasn't worked since day one, the piece of shit
Nikon 600 f/4 ED VR
$13,000 CAD, but I got it on sale ($1000 off)
Also, 80-400 for my GF. It is an amazing lens... very impressed with it.
First "expensive" lens I ever bought new was Nikon 70-300, 10 years ago.
>>2823366
>Nikon 80-400
I ran a trial on that at my job- we do a lot of kinda technical aerial photos of small to mid sized objects from low level - and found it was awesome for getting subjects that were in turbulent places- we could fly over them at higher altitudes and still get useable detail instead of our usual low passes. Work wouldn't quite stump for one, alas- but it's an impressive lens
>>2823367
Yeah, I was really skeptical at first, but we ordered one and checked it out in-store and were amazed. It has since impressed us even more out in the field.
I'm not sure if we just got a really good copy, but it is one of the sharpest lenses we have. At least as sharp as the 50mm, which is unreal.
sigma 50 mm for nikon. 400$ brand new, when i bought it it wasnt much cheaper used. as recommended by ken rockwell, he rated one of the best lenses, but turns out it doesnt AF in live mode with the d800, still 5/5 glass tho.
>>2823366
>$13,000 CAD
Did you fuckin lease that thing or what? What did you buy it for?
>>2823186
SMC Takumar 6x7 55mm f3.5
$65 Still in the original packaging, had the original receipt from 1971, looked like it was never used, got it at a yard sale, they had already tossed all the other lenses and the camera "it isn't digital, probably wont work"
Only unused, clean lens I have ever purchased
Over 400 lenses in my collection, bought them all dirty, non working, moldy, usually by them by the box, fix 'em, clean 'em and use 'em
Yeah, I use them on MFT's, a7's and Q's
Hate auto-focus, give me a manual lens anyday
>>2823362
Top kek
Am I the only one that got the joke? Damn.
>>2823402
Just bought it. Worth every penny though.
Wildlife is all we really bother with.
>>2823418
I mean I'd love to be able to pay for a lens that's actually built for wildlife, but I can't imagine paying that much for a lens. I'd have to have one hell of a job to even think about it.
I barely make enough to support my habit as it is and even then, I don't make enough to buy the things I really really want.
>>2823418
>not building credit on a $13,000 investment
goddamn son.
>>2823432
>thinking you have to carry a balance to build credit
Carrying a balance does not help your credit in any way at all, not even a little bit.
E.g. If you bought a $50 item every month and paid it off every month for 12 months, it would have the same, if not better effect on your credit score as paying off a large sum in $50 increments. The large sum would in fact be more detrimental temporarily as you would have less available credit.
Available credit is one of the biggest factors in credit score. E.g. if you have a total of $100,000 worth of credit lines and you're maxed out on all of them; that's really bad. If you have $100,000 and you're only using <5% of that, that's good.
>>2823412
This is /p/ - I half expected someone to suggest I was lying about buying one haha
>>2823276
Lmao are you retarded or something?
Easily triggered autist should return to his hugbox.
>>2823453
You're 100% wrong. Credit scores are a rating of how much money banks can earn off of you. Paying off your balance every month means no interest, which means you aren't gaining them shit and could actually be costing them money. By never carrying a balance on revolving debt, you're penalizing yourself around 150 points. To maximize score, you want around a third of your limit, never more than half.
By the way, never fucking speak about shit you have no clue about again. This is easy as Fuck information to find and no one makes a secret of it.
Never have bought a brand new lens.
Most expensive lens I've ever bought was $450.
>>2823478
This sounds like "uncle knowledge". Something your uncle tells you after his second beer at Thanksgiving.
Your credit score is about how reliable a borrower you are. Suggesting whether or not the bank will ever see its money again.
>>2823348
>Someone didn't get a graduation gift.
It's true. It's just expected that you'd graduate. There's no gift involved. The education was the gift.
Shrug.
>>2823482
i will have this someday
>>2823201
it seems more like "what was the biggest mistake you made" and there's nothing wrong with that.
i bought the 16-35mm f/4L recently. i don't think it was the biggest mistake i've made lens-purchasing-wise - i simply couldn't find it used anywhere nearby. still, definitely the most expensive lens i've bought *new*
>>2823508
>16-35mm f/4L
Why? Did you not already have an ultrawide? Do yout hink it represents a discernable improvement in IQ over other EF UW's?
>>2823508
I hope you've got a FF body, otherwise that's a $1000 piece of crap equivalent to a F5.6 aperture in its light capturing for the sensor (half the light is missing sensor entirely, for an already-slow lens)
>>2823566
>now THIS is some real bait
>>2823186
>buying new
HA!
Also I bought my DA 16-45 new from b-stock for $120. The most I paid for a lens is $550 for a Tamron 70-200/2.8.
>>2823432
We used the credit card, then paid it off immediately.
We were buying a house at the time... debt doesn't help. We went in with slightly less downpayment (but more than enough) and zero debt. We did the same with the car for the same reason.
>>2823186
same sigma 85 1.4 ex, i managed to get it for about $500 AUD new
Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD. Got it for 85,000¥ brand new in Tokyo, which was pretty good since prices here are around $1,300 or so.
>>2823633
But you said you bought it for USD.
>>2823634
What. I went to Tokyo and picked one up there for 85,000¥ local prices here in Australia are usually $1,300.
>>2823636
>Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD
It says USD not ¥
>>2823409
>"it isn't digital, probably wont work"
jesus christ
My school had a photography workshop with a darkroom and everything, and one day I just spot like 10 old sexy rangefinders just thrown in the fucking bin
I took them all obviously, but it's a shame that all the thrown lenses were shitty 35-70mm type stuff
>>2823638
You're gotta be bait.
>>2823205
chose this over the 40mm, now I want the 40mm for my film canons
>>2823566
Bait?
Maybe you don't know, but when you use FF lenses on crop sensors the DOF is different (equivalent to a higher f number) but the actual exposure is still the same.
>>2823639
my school has a darkroom that hasn't been used at all except by the teacher.
free film, papers. chemicals and shit.
>>2823651
Actually that's not true. Using FF lenses on crop sensors without a speedbooster means you do not expose the sensor to the entire imaging circle. Therefore less light is captured.
It's physics mang.
>>2823659
Except light is not measured that way. It's physics mang but not your high school level shit, it is mostly written with partial differentials and differential equations.
>>2823659
Go and get two tubs or containers, that are smaller than the water column that falls from your shower.
Put them each in the shower, one at a time, until an inch of water has fallen in them.
Tell me if it takes longer to get the inch of water in the smaller tub.
>>2823664
Umm... you can't describe light with a simple discrete particles experiment because it is a wave and a particle at the same time and travels as a probability wave until it interacts with a particle or field.
>>2823667
What? I wasn't doing any such thing - I'm a polyamorous-hydropolymerfile who gets off on people putting water in tubs.
nikkon 18-55
$50
fantastic lens
>>2823703
>kit lens
>fantastic
Are you using a 6MP camera?
bought not even a year ago now I have to sell it soon since I'm switchin to nikon, fuck my life
will lose hundreds i guess but wtvr
>>2823633
sell it they are replacing it with a new SP lens soon
>>2823723
Get one for Nikon as well. Maybe you can switch it at B&H or Adorama.
>>2823719
It's actually pretty sharp.
Gave mine away because I didn't need nor want it, but really a great lens for the money.
>>2823357
This - $300.
Only paid full price because I was going on a trip that benefited from the wide angle.
Most expensive lens outside of that is the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L which I got at Keh used for $670 in basically like new condition.
Then the 24-105 refurb from Canon was like $550.
2k for a 100-400mm ii
worth it
>>2823728
it's more of an action lens, I want to shoot portaits so I need another kind, the lens I want is about what i may get after selling this lens
i just threw a grand down on the 28mm gr lens for ltm. still waiting though.
>>2823785
Why not switch for Pentax and get a 70mm Limited for K-3 or 77mm Limited for the K-1?
Also I use the big Tammy for portraits as well but yeah, main usage is action/sport and wildlife.
>>2823186
Ah ah ah lol sigma
70-200 VRI. Bought it in person at B&H in '08.
I've actually owned it longer than any other AF lens in my setup, aside from a 50 1.8 that I don't use. (Replaced with a 1.4, and the 1.8 isn't worth enough used to bother selling.)
I'm really considering selling my Nikon gear and moving to a full Fuji kit, though, maybe when the XT2 appears.
>>2823723
Don't they have a deal where you can send them in and get the mount changed or is that sigma I'm thinking of?
>>2823647
Just buy it anon
Pretty cheap especially second hand
>>2823856
That's Sigma and only the new post-Art lenses. Some of them. There's like seven lenses total in that service.
>>2823478
no. i've never had an outstanding balance on my credit card, nor held any dept and always paid off in full every month and my credit score is 760+ and im in my early 20s
>>2823186
A 24-70L mk 1 in 2010.
>>2823719
The new 18-55's 14-42's, and 24-85's are way better than the old ones used to be. They're actually valid, usable lenses now.
>>2823475
Kill yourself friendarooni
>>2823475
No nigga you're dumb just shut up
>>2823868
outstanding balance and "using a third of your limit" refer to two different things, please shut the fuck up
>>2823483
Nope.
>>2823495
Wrong. I'm a credit counselor and like I said, it's pretty easy to find verification of what I told you. Hell, a free service you should be using is creditkarma to keep track of that shit. They'll send you random offers for stuff, but you can just ignore them.
>>2823868
>760
If we're talking about letter grades, that's like a B. Actual good scores, the kind of scores where you go into a bank and tell them you want to buy a vehicle and they give you a blank check, don't start till 800.
>>2823989
I'd hate to know what letter grade my shitty 630-660 is.
I've never bought anything new, but I got pic related for $650 in a camera store in Tokyo.
>>2823989
>If we're talking about letter grades, that's like a B. Actual good scores, the kind of scores where you go into a bank and tell them you want to buy a vehicle and they give you a blank check, don't start till 800.
i never said it was great, but its good for a student with no job
>>2823981
you said you want a third of your credit limit on your balance. thats retarded. and i have a 20K limit on my chase card, but i sure as shit dont want to carry several thousand in debt. especially when im applying for security clearance and financial troubles are the biggest reason for clearance denials
>>2823478
Source?
>>2823647
>buying a film canon
whats a good film canon that takes modern lenses? i shoot canen for digital so i have digital lenses but i really like nikon film cameras so im kinda stuck right now
>>2824240
You mean besides not having to have two sets of lenses?
Also, some of them are pretty cool. For example eye tracking focus of the Elan 7ne is awesome.
>>2824236
>security clearance
ok Jack Bauer
>>2823989
>Nope
Well, pretty much all of the Internet suggests "yep"
For instance:
>Banks and other financial institutions may use a credit score to determine whether or not an individual is likely to default on a loan, mortgage, or other debt.
>>2824240
EOS3
>>2824246
>I somehow don't think that there's a difference between someone who maintains a balance of around 30% allowing a credit card company to charge 10% of that and someone who never carries a balance, never letting the credit card company charge interest. I further think that there's absolutely no reason for such a business to combine risk management and customer valuation.
wew lad.
>>2824250
I have a credit score of 827, and I carry a 0 balance on two credit cards, and paid off two financed cars three years early each.
>>2823186
sold my weights too
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Hasselblad Camera Model Hasselblad H3D II-39 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Photographer David Jeffery Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2407 Image Height 3988 Compression Scheme Unknown Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2010:02:03 19:36:09 Exposure Time 383479/134217728 sec F-Number f/20.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/20.0 Metering Mode Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 210.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1100 Image Height 1100
Samyang 14mm, I have more expensive lenses but buying new isn't worth it. Much better value buying secondhand.
Bought the 50mm APO summicron for $7k. Love that little lens. So discreet.
Pic related.
"Full price" is debatable, but I did pay above invoice and new.
Favorite lens by a mile.
50mm MD Macro Rokkor. Straight out of the box for 100e, for taking figurine upskirts.
50mm 1.8D = 120€ bought new
85mm 1.4G = 1150€ bought used
>>2823186
Fuji 50-140mm
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 136 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:25 09:43:46 Exposure Time 1/950 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 6.4 EV Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 90.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
I bought the pentax hd 55-300mm for 250 USD. most ive spent on a lens before that was like 60 bucks. no i really want the 150-450 but cant afford it
I think it was 160 was it for a Nikon 55-200 vr dx. Bought it new at bestbuy on boxing day. After that, when I upgraded from my old D50, I changed brand and went with canon because I wanted to do both photo and video and never paid more than 150 for a lens, though except my nifty fifty, I bought them all used.
>>2824507
Fuji glass is so nice, but so expensive. Does any other manufacturer work with the Fuji X series cameras?
>>2824687
There are some Zeiss lenses. And a smattering of random manual only third parties like Rokinon/Samyang, Mitakon, Handevision.
There isn't a third party making fully featured inexpensive alternatives to Fuji lenses, however. The system just isn't selling all that well at this point (mostly due to lack of knowledge about its existence for most photographers) to entice people to design for it.
>>2824692
>mostly due to lack of knowledge about its existence
I thought Fuji was one of the more popular manufacturers.
>>2824725
If you go up to nearly any non-internet photographer on the street and ask what you think about fuji cameras, they'll say "Oh, I didn't do photography very much back in the film days"
They do a lot of photo related stuff, and were a huge name when film mattered, but awareness of their mirrorless X system is pretty much zero at the moment. High cost of equipment and quirks you have to learn to get used to (rather than stuff that feels great in the first five seconds you pick it up in the store) will probably keep it that way for quite a while at least.
i bought a sony rx1 last year for $2K, drunk surfing ebay. went through with it despite better judgement.
easily one of the worst purchase decisions ive ever made and one of the factors that got me to reconsider my drinking habits.
sony cameras are so deceptive. specs are amazing but specs dont mean shit if the camera itself is terrible.
>>2824743
What's an ES2? Google isn't helping.
The 50-140 is my favorite lens I've owned. It's a brick, it focuses quickly and accurately, and is sharp across the whole range, at every aperture. It's not cheap, but when you hold it, it's worth what it costs. That doesn't help you if you can't afford it, obviously.
The less expensive fuji tele-zooms are also very very good, you just lose weather sealing and the constant f/2.8. And maybe the IS? I don't know, I haven't used them.
>>2824747
Sorry, Fuji X‑E2
>>2824749
Oh! The X-E2 is certainly capable. Very much so.
And that photo isn't particularly demanding on the lens, either. Fine detail isn't important to the shot, and there's nothing to blow out in the background, so f/2.8 doesn't matter.
You'd be just fine. Portraits don't take nearly as much equipment as people think. It's ALL about styling, posing, environment, composition, connection, and LIGHT.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 142 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:23 17:05:53 Exposure Time 1/1100 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 6.6 EV Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 94.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2824754
The problem I have with the kit lens is no low light performance. There's not a constant 2.8. The more you zoom, the more you gotta compensate.
And let's be real, kit lenses are never that good. Even if it IS Fuji.
This is the lens that comes with it, I think:
http://www.precision-camera.com/Fuji-fujinon-xf-18-55mm-f2-8-4-0-ois-lens/
>>2824749
In fact, the X-E2 is more or less a smaller X-T1, with a less amazing viewfinder. The sensor is the exact same, and the AF system got a huge boost recently. Next-to no reason to not get the X-E2 if you want to get into the Fuji system.
And the 55-200 is optically excellent, and much cheaper than the 50-140. It's not "pro" in other areas, but as with almost all Fuji lenses, the image quality is very very good.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-Pro2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 194 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:03:23 22:20:04 Exposure Time 1/1100 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 6.8 EV Exposure Bias -0.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 129.20 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2824758
Well I've been trying out the X100T. I still have time to return it if I want to invest in the whole system.
I really like the glass Fuji produces. I could just get the X-T1, but it's so small for my hands.
>>2824757
The fuji kit lens is excellent. It's only a "kit lens" in that it is part of a kit. Not that it is a crappy lens thrown in. The lens sells for $700 by itself, new. The lack of constant f/2.8 only loses you one stop (and is still much faster than most kit lenses when they're zoomed in) and with great high ISO on the cameras, it's not much of a problem.
Pic related, a 100% crop from the kit lens at 55mm.
If you're looking for low light though, you want primes. The fuji primes are also excellent. If you want something fast in the portrait length, you will certainly be shelling out for a 56mm or 90mm, but that's where adapting can help. An FD 55mm f/1.2 can be had for like $400 USD. There are also 85mm that can be speed boosted, etc.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2824761
Ideally I'd get the Pro2, but I just can't afford it.
And they're about to come out with the E2s which was announced this January.
Canon 70-200 f4L IS and 24-105L at the same time.
Felt good to be a baller.
>>2824760
>but it's so small for my hands.
I felt the same, coming from my 5D, but got a battery grip for it, and it helped dramatically. I also got a large grip that attaches via the tripod plate for when I had the vertical grip off of it. That also felt very nice.
It's certainly not for everyone though, and if you can't find a way to make it comfortable in your hand, I'd suggest looking elsewhere. The feel of the cameras is such an important part of the experience, and if you don't like it, there's little reason to put up with the other quirks.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi
>>2824768
It's not just the height, but the width. It's just an all around tiny camera and my hands are gigantic.
>>2824764
If I were in your exact shoes, with an X100T to get rid of, I'd sell it on Amazon for the highest price, get an X-E2 (not the s) and the kit lens in a used bundle for cheap. I'd get a 35mm f/1.4, and a 55-200 (if you need telephoto right now) Or maybe wait a bit and catch an X-T1 as the prices drop for people selling them to get the X-T2.
I have both the X-T1 and the XPro2, and for portraits and general walking around, I don't care which I'm using. Both produce great images, and the extra resolution doesn't do any good unless you're printing really large, or cropping in.
The kit lens is used for daily walk-around stuff. Anything in the normal range you're not planning to shoot ahead of time. I have five Fuji lenses and two bodies, and I still use the kit lens REGULARLY. There's no reason not to, unless you need a focal length it doesn't provide, or thinner depth of field than you can achieve with it. The build quality on it is great, the AF on it is better than most of the other original lenses... It's a very good lens.
>>2824770
Yeah, I know it. I found that it took a change in hand position to get my right hand comfortable. On my DSLRs, I had my wrist bent forward, and my fingers pointing more or less directly forward. When I tried to use the same grip on my X-T1, it's just so small and awkward, and doesn't fit in your fingers. Way too much empty space, and you're basically using your finger nails to hold on. But if you un-bend your wrist, and point your fingers up, in stead, (so that if you were to un-curl your pointer finger, you'd be pointing at the sky) it fits much more comfortably. Still not quite big enough (especially without the fucking $150 grip attachment) but much much better, to the point where I could stop thinking about it.
50 1.8 E Series $10
>>2824766
>f/4
Absolutely disg... >Sugar !egyYvoBZV2
...disgusting.
>>2824239
His ass
I bought an 80-200 f/2.8 new. It was the only lens I've ever bought new. My friend got the same one used, maybe half the price. You couldn't tell the difference. I've been buying used ever since. I do love the lens though
biggest fag on this board checking in at $1,300
35L brand new for $1200 I think. I haven't used it in about 2 years.
>>2823647
I'm thinking of getting this for my t5i, how do you like it?
>>2823205
For the longest time, I favoured my Voigtlander over this, but recently I have been using this more than the Voigtlander.
>>2823362
That's my most expensive lens also
>>2825997
I adore mine, but honestly I under utilise it. I really should drag it out this weekend
Pic related. So totally worth it.
>>2826108
Fuck yeah it is
£12
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:09:04 17:42:20 Exposure Time 1.6 sec Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Brightness -5.0 EV Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Daylight Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard
$380
Freaking love the lens.
Used. Still close to 400 though.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2824240
any canon eos film camera will work I use a rebel 2000 and it works gr8.
Bought it at 2500 USD
>muh gear faggotry
>>2827048
>I wish we were canon soooo hard
>>2827050
Then I woun't be able to use it with my a77ii a mount and my a7rii and a7s e mounts as well so no, not at all.
>keep sucking on canon's dick bitch
>>2825969
Got you beat bruh
$1,900 canon 24-70 2.8L ii
And bought the canon 400mm 5.6 at the same time $1,200. So that was a $3,000 purchase all at once
>>2827053
>keep sucking on canon's dick bitch
HAHAHA, you don't even know you're sucking Canon's dick with that lens. Beautiful. Do you Sonyfags know anything about photography?
>>2823789
My niqqa.
Also, the GR itself is my most expensive bran-nu lense purchase, very closely tied with my EF-S 11-22mm, which I very recently adapted to fit on my FoolFrame EOS film bodies.
2nd Hand, on the other hand, I dropped nearly a G on my Canon FD 85L.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SIGMA Camera Model SIGMA DP1 Merrill Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Focal Length Range 19 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2015:06:17 12:47:36 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 19.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1313 Image Height 1000 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 3030333132323837E770815532353333 Resolution HI Autofocus Mode AF-S Focus Setting AF-S White Balance Auto Exposure Mode A Metering Mode A Exposure 1.1 Contrast -0.7 Shadow 1 Highlight -0.6 Saturation 1.1 Sharpness 2.0 Fill Light 1.0 Color Adjustment Infinite
>>2823478
Completely incorrect. My credit score is 800 and I have never paid a cent of interest to my credit card company.
>>2823484
how do you like those sour grapes?
>>2823478
Banks DO have ratings like that, but they did not call them "credit scores" when I worked for them. I think you are combining two different things, my foul-fingered friend.
>>2827057
You didn't see the post about a $7,000 lens? Search for "7k"
>>2823989
>the kind of scores where you go into a bank and tell them you want to buy a vehicle and they give you a blank check, don't start till 800.
A high score isn't enough for that. A teenager with a cell phone bill who pays it off consistently every month can have a high credit score. For large purchases like houses and cars, they look at the type of debt you've had as well. If you have had no large debt in your past, you don't get handed new debt with impunity. You could have a credit score of 840, but if it's just bills and a low limit credit card, you'll still need a co-signer for a car.
This, and nowdays I hate shooting with zoom lenses.
I payed 50€ for my favourite lens and I shoot with D610.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D300 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (13.0 20120305.m.415 2012/03/05:21:00:00) (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2863 Image Height 1908 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2012:04:23 15:56:31 Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:04:22 16:11:59 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/18.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/18.0 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected Focal Length 105.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2409 Image Height 1845 Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Bought a sigma 35mm 1.4 for music gigs then loved it and bought the 24mm 1.4 for social events 3 weeks later! Have sold all off my zooms besides my 70-200 but I am looking for ways to make it happen
>>2823432
> building credit [score]
In countries where this ridiculous shit is possible, you don't want credit.
You want to buy shares in a bank.
If we're talking brand new, the Nikkor 24mm 1.8. My 70-200 was more, but bought used because I'm a turbo Jew.
>People ACTUALLY buy Sigma et al. lenses
Literally the only lens I've ever paid full price for, all £60 of it. The rest are either discounted, refurbished, or just plain used.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 750 Image Height 750 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:05:06 09:33:20 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 640 Image Height 420
>>2823268
>le college is for debted losers, im too smart for college go to trade school become welder, hang out with only low classed blue collars and live in flyover land meme
>>2831662
fucking kek
>>2831541
Your face when I bought a brand-new-old-stock Sigma 14/2.8 AF in K-mount for $650AUD
>mfw pentacks releases a fool frame camera that can use it
>I will sell it to some cucked K-1 buyer for $1500, because pentacks has never released a native FF k-mount lense that wide
>I will use that cash to buy an A7R
>I will only use the A7R to scan film
>using an adapted pentacks-m 50mm f/4 Macro lense
Where is your god now?
>>2831583
I wish I could get Canon primes cheaper than 60 bong dollars.
Assholes on ebay bid them up for some reason.
>>2831719
>or just the 56mm is equivalent
In this episode of Will It Blend?™ by Blendtec®
>This Thread!!!
>>2831719
>>2831724
550€ well spent
>>2831719
>I know fuji labels it a little differently or something.
They don't.
In terms of light and field of view, it's equivalent to an 85mm f/1.2 on full frame.
In terms of depth of field, it's equivalent to an 85mm f/1.4 on full frame.
>>2832003
Enjoy your broken aperture flex cable. I fix Tokina wide angle lenses regularly
The first and most expensive lens I bought is the Nikon 70-300 mm AF-S ED
>>2832003
>wasting half a grand on a crop wide angle
>>2831698
>>I will only use the A7R to scan film
What else would you use it for?
>>2832098
Some people use it to take blurry photos because of shutter shock.
canon 35mm f2 IS
it's hard to find used one in my country
CANON EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM
Paid the RRP because nobody was discounting: AUD $2,699.00 (USD $2,000 ). A year later and the price still hasn't dropped.
Best lens I've used out of 10 L-series lenses.
10/10: Would rape my wallet again.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS M Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2016:03:14 01:37:53 Exposure Time 1/50 sec F-Number f/3.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/3.5 Exposure Bias -1/3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 22.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2000 Image Height 1333 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2832071
Unless you shoot 8x10, every lens you own is crop.
>>2823186
Anyone love the Rokinon lenses?
Ordered it, and waiting for it's arrival.
Payed 569 euros brand new
>>2833999
>paying full price for sigma
Oh anon..
>>2831583
>Mfw bought the knockoff version
>Bokeh is good but the center isn't even sharp
A Tokina 11-16mm, of course I bought the one without the focus motor on my low end nikon dslr so I had to manual focus (but hey, even at f2.8 there's a good metre of focus even up close), was slightly bitter that 2~ years later they released one with a focus motor and the price of the original dropped significantly, to about just over half of what I paid new -- I thought decent expensive lenses generally didn't deprecate in value too much
fantastic lens though
Full price would be this thing.
Not the most expensive lens I bought new, but my Tamrom 70-200 f/2.8 was almost $300 off + $100 rebate when I got it.
>>2834372
>bought a knockoff nifty fifty
But why? The thing is so cheap that you shouldn't need to buy a fake.
>>2823186
70-200mm f/2.8G
why are you guys so poor? my zoom's not even an exotic and it still outclasses you guys.
>>2823418
>600mm f/4
>$13,000
Just buy a fucking D800 35MP and crop it. I just saved you 10 grand.
this sort of, was my college graduation gift but could have gotten something else for $2k so ill count it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2834612
If only it worked that way.
>>2834612
There are 4 types of photographers:
1. Focal length->0 lens and cropping
2. Focal length->infinity lens and stitching
3. 8-1200mm f/2 zoom lens
4. 8-1200mm f/0.8 prime lenses
>>2834316
Payed 200 euros less.
Not a stupid fuck..
Oh anon...
