/p/ - Photography » Thread #3773726

[21 / 5 / ?]

4MiB, 2000x3000, _DSF7825_small.jpg

Jupiter 37

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 10:19:57 No.3773726 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3773749 >>3773750 >>3773752 >>3773753 >>3773759 >>3773764

Got myself one of those for my new x-pro 2.

Just shot everything with a x100s before and could get a sharp picture with a shutter speed of 1/30.

Now I'm kind of struggling with the heaviness of this lens and additionally it seems to be very soft.

Any tips to take sharper shots with this lens? I like the dreamy look but would be nice to know a way to pull off more detailed pictures if I have to.

Does the M42 - FX Adapter contribute to the lack of detail?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:22:37 No.3773749 Report

Quoted By: >>3773760

>>3773726
I'm not familiar with the Jupiter 37 specifically but like most lenses of the era it will likely be soft wide open.
If you want the “dreamy” look but also sharpness then a modern lens and a mist filter is the way to go. With vintage lenses, especially ones made by vodka-swilling Bolsheviks, the dreamy look and softness go hand in hand. That said, you can make the most out of it by getting good at manual focus and keeping shutter speed high. With 24mp and a 1.5× crop, 1/60s is way, way too slow. People on this board like to show off by larping as a human tripod but you will always lose some sharpness by pushing shutter speed too low. Stick to 1/200 or faster. Also, what's going on with the lighting? That picture looks way, way underexposed. It's hard to tell if you got her in focus because of all the noise. It does look like you've got motion blur from the smeared catchlight in here eyes. Fix the lighting and shoot at like 1/250 and you will get better results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:23:48 No.3773750 Report

Quoted By: >>3773760

>>3773726
I missed your last question. If your adapter is a focal reducer with glass elements, then it might, depending on the quality. If it's just a dumb adapter then no.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:31:15 No.3773752 Report

Quoted By:

>>3773726
take your pants off your head, buy a contemporary lens, mist filter for your desired effects, job done.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:31:59 No.3773753 Report

Quoted By: >>3773756 >>3773759

>>3773726
>Sensorlet Fuji poster surprised his $20 full frame lens doesn't give good results

There's a reason everyone told you to buy a full frame body if you can't afford the very best lenses.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:38:21 No.3773756 Report

Quoted By: >>3773762 >>3773771

>>3773753
How is this message helpful to the OP? Quickly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:42:45 No.3773759 Report

Quoted By: >>3773761 >>3773771

>>3773726
There can be few things going on:
1. Soviet lens have fuckton of variety. Some copies are sharp, others are soft like a butter. You could get soft one, especially since all vintage 135 are rather sharp. Mine copy is solid.
2. Stop down appeture. Even crappiest copies can improve and became razor sharp at f8
3. You could fuck up focus.

>>3773753
Retarded take

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:45:36 No.3773760 Report

Quoted By: >>3773763

>>3773749
>>3773750
Thanks for the in-depth answers anon.
Never shot with a telephoto lens before, will try to get the best out of this one for now.

Are there any cheap alternatives for FX that do better in low light?
Would be nice to have something that's 60-200 or something in that field?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:47:14 No.3773761 Report

Quoted By: >>3773763

>>3773759
Thanks, stepping it down to 5.6 seems to help but I guess I overestimated its ability to perform in low-light.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 9daf03257e9f17860abea4055f298a09 (...).jpg, 48KiB, 625x376

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:47:30 No.3773762 Report

Quoted By:

>>3773756
>/p/
>helpful

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:56:05 No.3773763 Report

Quoted By: >>3773765

>>3773760
>>3773761
3.5 isn't especially fast, and combined with the need for a fast shutter to get sharp shots it's not gonna be great in low light.

>Are there any cheap alternatives for FX that do better in low light?
Unfortunately you can only pick 2 of cheap, fast and zoom. If you want to stick with vintage there's a huge supply of fast 50 or 85mm lenses out of the USSR and Japan. A lot of f/2 or f/1.4 lenses will be okay wide open and nice and sharp by 2.8.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:56:54 No.3773764 Report

Quoted By: >>3773766

>>3773726
>Does the M42 - FX Adapter contribute to the lack of detail?
What kind of adapter is it? Is it one of those cheap speedbooster clones with glass in them or is it just a dumb adapter?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:58:35 No.3773765 Report

Quoted By:

>>3773763
I'm using that M42 adapter without glass.
Is there anything you can recommend that's inexpensive, adds up to around 100mm, and would be suitable for low light?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 11:59:39 No.3773766 Report

Quoted By: >>3773767

>>3773764
It's one of those cheap K&F Concept ones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 12:02:26 No.3773767 Report

Quoted By: >>3773769

>>3773766
Then it's not likely to be the adapter giving you problems.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 12:13:02 No.3773769 Report

Quoted By:

>>3773767
Good to know, thanks!

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSCF8101.jpg, 276KiB, 2768x1755

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 12:13:18 No.3773770 Report

Quoted By: >>3773778

This is crop of mine photo using jupiter 37a. Wide open, close focus. Probably would be sharper at longer distance, and much sharper stopped down, but it's usable.

In telephoto land you cant get much faster than 2.8 easily. There are many 135 f2.8, most of them are crap at 2.8. You can get 200 f2.8 or even 300 f2.8 but they are rare, expensive, big an probably disappointing.

Probably your best bet is getting 50-55 f1.4. There are shitload of them on ebay (and it could be possible it is cheaper to ship it from japan than in your local country). Get ones from canon, minolta, konica. On a crop sensor they are moderate telephoto, and you still can crop in.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 12:13:24 No.3773771 Report

Quoted By: >>3773772

>>3773756
He can sell his unsuitable body and buy a full frame one before the resale value tanks even further :)

>>3773759
>Retarded take
Yet that's the best counter point you could formulate? You must be a Fuji poster.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO WHOA.png, 59KiB, 760x792

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 12:20:22 No.3773772 Report

Quoted By:

>>3773771
>You must be a Fuji poster.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2020 12:59:56 No.3773778 Report

Quoted By: >>3774786

>>3773770
Yea mine is not nearly as sharp, even stopped down.
Thanks for the lens advice, gonna look into those.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Flippy-uppy bit pushes on this pin.png, 235KiB, 440x452

Anonymous Wed 09 Dec 2020 02:42:48 No.3774786 Report

Quoted By:

>>3773778
It's possible that your m42 adapter isn't depressing an aperture plunger. Pentax screw-mount cameras had a mechanism for depressing a plunger on the back of the lens, allowing the manufacture of "aperture preset" lenses. The lens would have a mechanism for letting you set what you wanted while you framed the shot, and would only stop down right before the image was captured.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Jupiter 37