do you need vintage lenses?

[@easun]

easun.gumroad.com/l/botanicals oops dropped my powergrade

[@forgottencameras]

If I see an old Pentax or Minolta lens at a thrift store for cheap, I will grab it, but I never use them anymore. Used to be all I used; think I kinda grew out of it.

[@DayneFilm]

B-but the bokeh look preddy 😢

[@easun]

This is valid

[@Those_Weirdos]

"You don't need more lenses" - How DARE you!

[@easun]

mb i lied the more lenses you have the better

[@MM.]

I have a quirky Sigma Filtermatic 24mm prime, which is totally blurry wide open and has a wheel of filters built in, which I've yet to really take advantage of. I considered parting with it, but couldn't bring myself to do it. It has now taken permanent residence on my D300 that nobody wanted, playing nicely off its higher ISO noise in b&w. Depending on the aperture, it's a lomography lens, vintage lens and surprisingly sharp prime all in one. The bloom is spectacular.

[@easun]

that lens sounds very interesting! grainy b/w shots have a special place in my heart haha

[@Couvrs]

I own a lot of Pentax-K mount lenses which from the 70s-90s, a big part of the reason to buy is those lenses are pretty damn cheap, even compared to the parallels prodcuts. And I'm a M43 system user, those old lenses are pretty easy to adapt and use on the M43 system. I love the Pentax-M series, the prices are decent, the quality is great, and I wouldn't likely choose the Takumar series, because those are too old and too expensive for me. And I didn't own any modern AF big aperture lens for my M43 systems, and those are not very cheap as well, so I choose old lenses meanly for a cheap reason rather than a "vintage" reason.

[@Nathanator]

Good video 👍

[@2OXX]

what camera

[@easun]

Lumix GH4

[@2OXX]

@@easun ty