>>4197728>are all effectively the same shit found the nophoto
lenses are all the same to you only if youre a nophoto or a snapshitter OR if you buy cheap, shitty lenses that all have the same look.
why the fuck do you think cinematographers and fashion photographers have literal arsenals of 50+ lenses? because they choose a lens based on which look they are going for. deakins does photography in his free time and guy has a literal room full of lenses. but thats cinematographer autism, they are a breed of their own. you get the point
>>4197725what is your camera? dslr? mirrorless? model?
depending on your sensor, you will get different results with different lenses. even a same lens on a different sensor can get you a slightly differnt look
the f2 DC makes the best looking images out of the bunch and its also one of the very few lenses that can be shot in true b&w/monochorme without losing contrast. if you shoot portraits, landscapes, nature or street ''photography'', then this lens is basically the cheaper (and in my opinion better) version of the leica 135mm f3,4 apo telyt
if you have a mirrorless and dont mind using an adapter, then go for zeiss apo sonnar f2 135 ZE for canon ef mount
>no, not the zf2 version for nikon, same lens but the canon version is quite a bit sharper, passes through more light and has better coatings (images look better)another option, if youre rich, is the adapter + leica 135mm f3.4 apo telyt
you can also get the Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX APO, which was a sigmas 3rd and final attempt at making a true APO lens with their terrible APO coatings and equally as horrible aspherical element but the result is quite surprising and still to this date, it is the only sigma lens ever made that doesnt produce dead lifeless images (like actually the only one, no exaggeration, its the only sigma lens ever made that actually makes decent looking images - and no im not trolling, look up some image samples, its the one and only good sigma lens)
