>>4200473>Vintage lenses are overrated in my opinionthats because you either never actually used a vintage lens or if you did, you shot with some cheap ass $80 pile of shit
most high end photographers have at the very least 2-3 different looks that they really, really, really like and with that they also have 2-3 vintage lenses that help them achieve those looks when they need them or want them.
and if you look at high end photographers in fine art, fashion and film(cine) industries, they are shooting entire sets, solely based on specific looks and moods that they want for the scene/set and they choose lenses specifically based whatever look they have in mind for that particular set or scene. they often hoard vintage lenses and rent entire lens sets of cine lenses from multiple different manuacturers. for example roger deakins, one of the best cinematographers to ever live and one of the few who still does photography despite working in film industry, in an interview said that he has an entire fucking storage room full of vintage lenses from wide to telephoto, from 20mm to 400mm.
just because youre using shit lenses, doesnt mean all lenses are shit and all lenses are the same. buy a proper fucking lens for once in your life. you have 40-50 more years of your life, spend some money you faggot, life is not going anywhere unless you die
