What's Wrong With f3.5? The CHEAPEST Vintage Lenses You Can Buy!

Here are some of the cheapest vintage lenses in the world.
If you like vintage lenses, check out this video! Do you really have a choice?
These lenses are very high quality optics and will make you some fantastic images.
These lenses are all very sharp. These lenses all give fantastic colours. Each has its own unique character too.
I picked each one for its combination of value and outstanding image quality.
They won't give as much background blur as an f1.4, but how much blur do you really need? There's more to photography than blur.
So check out the video and see how good these lenses really are.
Go on, you know you want to!
If you like the content on this channel please consider becoming a patron at www.patreon.com/Zenography?fa...
Thanks for watching!

[@matt_phistopheles]

I think this depends on the type of camera that you are using. On old range finders or digital cameras it's not a problem but on old film SLRs it can get very dark in the view finder very fast. Many old SLRs have dark screens to begin with and if you add a slow lens to the equation then it can be very hard to focus in low light. In this case I'd definitely choose a faster lens - not for the picture, just for the convenience.

[@alestomsic]

Agree! One of my preferred vintage lens is Industar 50 f3.5, 20 eur, mint. I use it for macro where you anyhow don't need wider aperture. For portraits, specifically children, on my X-T10 it makes so subtle picture not to be compared to anything else. Or Jupiter 135 f3.5, also 20 eur, mint, what a nice lens! I love to watch your videos, even if I already have and do many things you talk about. Hope your videos inspire many people, as I find photography "being in the moment" or what you nicely call zen. I shoot for 50 years. Please continue!

[@kerishlotaan]

You need to know that you are one of my favorite photography channels, you have a great voice and a great tempo in your videos and i appreciate your take on gear reviews and the like. Keep it up man!

[@kikosaid]

Hi, Nigel. Happy New Year. Always a pleasure to ear you talking. Informative and inspiring, really Zenography. Best Regards

[@cschaus3769]

Thank you very much for a very good and interesting Video again! Always great Information and Inspiration from yours!

[@faustoart]

I own some 3,5 old lenses, and I really, really love them. For me the image quality of this kind of old glass is not very important. For me, iit's more about understanding the evolution of lens design, optics and coatings. For me, this lenses are the beggining of modern photography, and it's great going out and using them. Great video Nigel!

[@arcanics1971]

I could not agree more! My first ever lens was an F/3.5 wide open and it made some amazing blur. Now I have much faster lenses, but I still will happily buy a slower lens, if the optics are good. 1.4 is the fastest I have, and I can't imagine ever needing faster than that.

[@ThomasEisl.Photography]

Great video 📸 😌

[@sputumtube]

Although I've yet to use it, I took delivery yesterday (25/01/2022) of an exc+++ Nikon F2AS from Japan. It nearly bankrupted me, but it came with a Nikon 55mm F1.2 lens. As soon as I get some film delivered I'll be keen to see the results you speak of. Thanks for posting, your channel is f**king awesome. :)

[@ArminHirmer]

you are fully right. I have a bunch of them, even the FED10 uncoated which I LOVE!! 3.5 makes it even a bit easier to manual focus. so no problem.

[@Magnetron692]

Hello Nigel, today my Minolta MD Rokkor 3.5/28 mm arrived from Japan - another wonderful lens in mint condition! You can imagine how pleased I was! I'll test it on my Nikon Z6, Minolta XD and Minolta XG-A and I'll let you know. If you wish I could send you some images. Best wishes, Ralf

[@tee_m]

Really haven't been using my Industar61 enough lately. Thanks for the reminder that it exists!

[@ipokefan4]

I picked up a Canon Breach FD Mount 35mm f/3.5 for about $40 a month or so ago for my AE1 Program and it’s absolutely lovely! Great way to test out whether I like 35mm lenses on the cheap, and it has a great set of characteristics to it to boot!

[@alanpods______8260]

Thank you Zenography for these recent videos, which I can definitely more relate to. I rarely / never shoot wider than f4 anyway, so being afraid of f3.5 is not a risk for me. f5.6 for the win all day long!

[@ohjajohh]

Great video! I have a Takumar 35mm which also is "only" f3.5 but it's a great lens!

[@GeorgeK356]

Great video episode this week, Nigel. A short focal length, extreme wide aperture lens is difficult and expensive to make. I don't know whether people are aware of how the F-stop is calculated? It is the ratio between the focal length divided by the diameter of the iris. This means that, at minimum aperture of f22 the iris opening is a tiny 1.27mm, which is why most wide angle lenses have a minimum aperture of f16, otherwise the front element would have to be huge. Lens geometry and design is a very complex subject, I only have a tenuous grasp on it at best. All we can do is enjoy the great lenses from the past, even the f3.5 ones.

[@kenandersson8777]

From one teacher to a another, well dun and very educative😁 I used to be a bokeh addict, I have backed of and slowed down.

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

I have three slow Vintage lenses. Minolta MC W. Rokkor-SG 28mm f3.5 Takumar Super-Multi-Coated 135mm f3.5 Pentax Super Multi Coated SMC Takumar 300mm f4

[@danienelphoto]

I am with you on the over-emphasis on background blur. It is a stylistic preference, and an expensive one at that.

[@nunoalves1039]

Great point! Something great for f/3.5 is video. I use a lot my industry 50-2 (the one for dslr with m42 tread) and my Pentacon 30mm f3.5 coupled with a x0.7 focal reducer on a m4/3 camera. This gives the speed of an f2.8 within a depth of field that is practical for manual focusing video and a crop factor similar to super35. In the other hand, it gives interesting background blur, almost painterly with enough subject separation.

[@fotosfcamacho]

Gracias por descubrirnos estos maravillosos cristales!!! Thank you for discovering these wonderful crystals for us!!! saludos Bye!!

[@Kitsaplorax]

The Ernostar was one fast design in the 1920's.

[@followtheboat]

I own and love both those Zuiko lenses but then I'm an Olympus legacy fanboy. However my favourite 3.5 lens is the Takumar 35mm. It's fun to use and produces beautiful results IMO. Built like a tank, I even dropped it in the sea and it came out unscathed (sadly the camera didn't)! If you're not a bokeh chaser then with 3.5 you are spoilt for choice with so many great legacy lenses to choose from and many at good prices. Keep up the great work, I'm one of your earliest viewers and love your relaxed and informed approach.

[@l33tl33p]

All of the 3.5 SMC Takumars are amazing, I own the 35mm as well as the 28mm and got them both for very cheap.

[@Viking88Power]

Great, thanks

[@TheNitebinder]

Good video you did here. One of the best camera lenses I ever used (besides the Nikon 105mm 2.5 ais) was the Pentax 135mm 3.5! You could quickly adjust the focus, the subject was razor sharp, the glass and body was well built. So called photographers often looked down on the Pentax K1000 35mm camera (the idiots), but used with the 135mm 3.5 and 50mm f2 lenses, it ruled!

[@nyax4361]

yeah, I agree that too much blur can be annoying especially with 85mm portaits. I found myself most comfort with 50mm f1.8 or T2, and 35mm f1.4. more blur than those, like 85mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f0.95 can be distracting from time to time when focusing on close-up subjects.

[@stevenjohnson6290]

Enjoy your video`s. from Georgia USA

[@cwkronenberg9838]

Interesting & informative, as always! Thnx! So are u'r saying the f/0.95 lens (& close associates) are basically great for out of focus background pics only? what other benefits come w 0.95? Stay blessed.

[@ldstirling]

I have had fantastic experiences and great results shooting with f/3.5 lenses. In particular, my Nikon 28mm f/3.5 Ai lens is super sharp and lovely to use. 90% of the time I'm shooting it, I'm stopped down to at least f/5.6 anyway so the speed of the lens is not an issue. Additionally, my Canon 135mm f/3.5 LTM lens makes beautiful images, is a gorgeous piece of kit, and at 135mm the bokeh with f/3.5 is definitely there.

[@kazuyosihiraga7856]

I totally agree with your opinion! I think world's greatest photographers don't use so much bokeh in their famous pictures. They are great at composing, catching lights, subjects and decisive moments and adequate amount of blur just enough to add atmosphere. When I see photo sharing sites, I think many people tend to use too much blur just to show off their fancy lenses. By the way, your sample shots make me feel like buying all the lenses introduced here:)

[@Martin_Siegel]

I think that nowadays bokeh is overrated it can help with ugly backgounds but you lose context so it helps the how (the picture is made) more than the why (it is made)

[@patrickmckeag3215]

I agree. I think background blur is being overly emphasized these days. It's a bit of a fad, in fact. Some background detail adds some necessary context to your composition.

[@Romoro86]

I suspect it is due to extencive usage of blur in wedding and other contemporary photo to blur out bad or overcrowded background together with that "bokeh search" of some photographers to find their perfect blur. If you see old good street photos, they mostly are witn minimum to non blur, still awesome.

[@craigyoung3229]

for the life of me I can not find any info on an Olympus zuiko 35mm f/3.5 lens you mention at 11:30. are you sure you aren't speaking of the 28mm f/3.5? and if not, can you please direct me towards this lens? many thanks. best videos ever. I watch every single one as they come out, and am doing my best to catch up on the past episodes. unbelievably informative.

[@amermeleitor]

I got a nearly free Nikkor 28mm f3.5, in a bundle with other Nikkor lenses. I thought about sell it but it's small, and the f3.5 is better for street, family, etc, when I need more depth of field, I close it to f5.6 or f8 and it's very very sharp. The focus ring and aperture works perfectly, so I ended keeping the lens. I have other 28mm f2.8 but are bigger and I stop them down to f5.6 anyways when I need more DOF

[@Jennifer_Prentice]

I find myself shooting way under F2 anyway . Most of my indoor shoots even with lights I tend to stick around F4 or so . I like the balance of sharpness and background separation . I honestly do not see any need for any lens over F2. I have a couple of nice F1.4 for my digital camera and I found running it around F4 gives me much nicer photos. I have a very nice F1.8 on one of my Exakta cameras and when I get outside to do photos I almost always shoot during the day or just before it starts getting darker outside and again I am not sure if I ever needed to get open to F1.8 lol. It is just a cool option that is there if I ever wanted to shoot something with tons of background blur and not something that is actually a needed feature unless you shoot in light starved areas or at night and then you still suffer from too small of a focusing area when the lens is that open . I still would just opt for long exposure times with a tripod if at all possible then faster setups but that's just me :).

[@notyourdad]

Barry Lyndon is a slightly overlooked masterpiece in my opinion - if I remember correctly the lens he used that he got from NASA was one they already had but they had to specially adapt it to the cameras he used.

[@whatsonmytable]

I did see another red F 1.0 lens 50 mm at one of the US museums

[@ryanbeer5262]

Love my f3.5/f4 lenses. 135/3.5 or 300/4 hello background blur. Or my nice small 28/3.5 or my favorite lens Nikkor 55/3.5.

[@kaplanyx]

I like my Olympus 3.5/50 for great sharpness and contrast/colors and use my Olympus 3.5/135 for details in nature with nice background blurr. Didn't feel restricted about the speed due to Olympus OM-D stabilizer.

[@Enrico2806]

Nice video, indeed. Do you normally shoot analog or digital cameras with your lenses?

[@scrptwic]

Nigel I have a Takumar 35mm3.5 M42 lens for landscape photography most lenses have F-11 so I have no problem using 3.5 lenses as I normally don't photograph with a low apertures anyway

[@that_which_is_not]

I was out snapping my friends at the skatepark today @ f3.5! No need to race to the bottom ❤

[@MichaelRusso]

I like lenses where I can have blur when needed. Lenses I don't like are ones where the background is always in crisp focus. Even then, those lenses can have their place.

[@johnrflinn]

Brassai took his famous photographs for the book Paris by Night with a Voigtlander Bergheil fitted with a 150mm F3.5 Heliar lens. The film was not that fast in the 30's.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

Model T's were great cars and considered "fast" in their day too, but that doesn't mean, that's what I want to drive today. :D I like my glass 2.8 + ;)

[@davidb9682]

Nigel, you mention an Olympus 35mm f3.5. I don't think there was such a lens. There was 28mm f3.5. Is this what you were thinking of?

[@zenography7923]

You're right - I meant the 28 - sorry!

[@tomronollo9411]

Exactly --- the newer sensors have made the 3.5 aperture a more viable option They tend to be sharper, and for landscape does it really matter?? Its on a tripod most of the time eh? They usually have lots of contrast and color thank you for these videos

[@parranoic]

I love my Konica 28mm 3.5. small and light

[@matthewneleigh567]

I've got a Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 1:2 macro (1:1 macro with included extension tube) that I've come to enjoy. And, of course, multiple FSU lenses with similar stats, collapsible and fixed- and the tiny M42 version (Industar 50-2) that can be used on SLRs. I'm more likely to reach for an f/2.8 optic, it has to be said, but the f/3.5 lenses have their place, and can deliver a distinct look all their own.

[@matthewneleigh567]

And now I have a Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5 as well!

[@richardhale9664]

In the digital age f3.5 should no longer be considered slow. Though not dirt cheap nor expensive, two of my favourite lenses are the Pentax K 35mm f3.5 and K 50mm f4 Macro. The former I have shot happily after dark with. Both produce gorgeous images with beautiful colours and sharp contrasty images. I also have a Nikkor 55mm f3.5 Macro. It is my standard lens of choice on my Nikon film cameras when shooting colour. I love the 50mm f3.5 Color Skopar built into my folding Voigtlander from the late 50's that I inherited from my grandfather. It produces nice sharp and contrasty images (as long as you get the scale focusing right!).

[@Magnetron692]

Hi Nigel, many thanks and a happy new year! Is it true that the Minolta MD 3.5/28mm is better than its 2.8 counterpart? Best wishes, Ralf

[@Magnetron692]

If you find a Minolta 3.5, buy it, it is as good as the Olympus counterpart.

[@jimstansfield]

i recently purchased a nikomat FT2 with a nkion 35 to 70 mm F 3.3 to f4.5 macro zoom i have yet to run a film through it.

[@Romoro86]

Can really recomend 2 ones i own and love. Jupiter 37a, 135 f3.5 with 10 blade apreture. Really a killer by ptice to picture. The other obe is zoom, Tamron 35-70 f3.5 cf macro. Small, sharp, light and actually a great macro despite it is not dedicated macro lens. I bought its big brotber 28-70 f2.8-3.8 (01a) and was disapointed, went back to the f3.5 one

[@johnherzel718]

I have a couple of Olympus manual focus lenses for my old OM-1 film camera that are f3.5, (28mm, 135mm) and they are super nice and very small. Oh and quite sharp. I will look for the 35mm too! F3.5 can be the sweet spot!

[@zenography7923]

I'm afraid I made a mistake - there was never an om 35 3.5 - I intended to refer to the 28mm 3.5, Sorry for the error!

[@johnherzel718]

@@zenography7923 Thanks Nigel, if I worried about all the little mistakes that get made in a 20+ minute you tube video I would probably be watching politics instead. (Ugh 😩) Your channel is a nice quiet diversion from all the noisy photo "influencer" types that have taken over You Tube. I like to learn about the classic cameras and lenses of yesteryear, having started with an AE-1 program with it's 50mm f1.4 (really it came with an outstanding lens when I bought it used in 1992). I hunt through pawn shops and 2nd hand stores looking for overlooked classics to play with and adapt to my modern mirror less camera. But I do need an Olympus 35 mm lens. Just won't be looking for it at f3.5. f2.8 will have to do! Thank you again for what you do! Cheers!

[@pmuadib2]

Id like to know more about that Zuiko 35/3.5 but couldn't find anything online except for the new MFT macro lens.

[@MichaelRusso]

There are plenty of wide angle lenses that are 3.5 and are great!

[@ulfjonsson2122]

Great video. Personally I don't like the modern paper thin Dof, I much prefer the 50:ies look in the images! The modern lenses are much too plastic looking.

[@elite.parakeet_]

Mr Zen, i’ve recently bought an olympus pen epl8, would like to get some more lenses for it but how can it tell what lenses will fit - is there a particular range they are guaranteed to fit this and most micro 4/3 bodies? love the channel. your content is educational and incredibly calming. tom

[@alan-sk7ky]

In short, yes Micro 4/3 or M4/3 sometimes will ofc fit and work correctly.. I can recommend Sigma 19mm + 60mm DC lenses in m4/3 fit I have both and they are certainly sharp enough wide open (f2.8) particularly the 60mm. The OEM Oly lenses are a touch too expensive for the better ones imo, Tha Panasonic 20mm F1.7 pancake would be worth a go if you want to stick with OEM manufactures Oly/Pana etc. Also have you considered the VF4 viewfinder? transforms the e-pl8

[@elite.parakeet_]

much appreciated!

[@mosswareproaudio6328]

Did you ever review the Auto Rikenon 55mm f1.4 both radioactive and not?

[@Max-Kramer]

Excessively open aperture is the lot of amateurs who like to blur the background like snot. In this case, the subject being shot on the street is not much different than if you shoot in a studio with an abstract background. However, in the video you talk in such a way that it becomes some kind of trend. In fact, it was long ago - about 15 years ago. Now gradually it has ceased to be such an obsessive trend. Moreover, many (the masses) began to shoot mainly on stubs smartphones. I also don't see much sense in very fast lenses. Owning 5 fast lenses, where the value varies in the range from 1.4 to 2.8, I find that it is very rare that I risk opening the aperture completely, because the frame will not be sharp. This is justified in those cases where the area (or object) being filmed is at the same level in range. Also an exception may be shots with the intention of beautifully separating the object from the background. But such shots are usually rare. Another argument in favor of fast (modern) lenses is that they are usually also optically more advanced and better made. In all other cases 3.5 or 4 or even initial 5.6+ is our choice! :) Because even when you shoot macro - an open aperture will allow you to have a very narrow strip of sharpness zone. As a result, you have to either close the aperture again, or use a composite shot of several to then glue them together and get sharpness in the right places in the frame. By the way, Zenography, do you know about such a rare lens as the Minolta 35-135 MD? I advise you to try it (if you can find it). This lens is very rare and manual, but very well made. The MFD is quite long, but in macro mode (1:4 or 1:8) the lens allows you to shoot closer. I bought it from the local secondary market for a small amount, because there was a lot of mold and condensation inside. But that won't stop us, right? :) We know how to clean. And now it's like new. 3.5 aperture? Who cares if it allows you to create great pictures! Especially with such a convenient range of focal lengths. Of course, 24 or 28 at the wide end would be a much more convenient range of focal lengths in terms of versatility, but as we know, the more versatile the lens, the more compromises the engineers had to make in terms of optical quality. I'm used to seeing focal lengths like 35-105 or 75-150. But 35-135 is something unusual.

[@michaelbuckley8986]

Thanks

[@zenography7923]

Thank you!

[@totenvt]

i use i nikon f3.5 nikkor enlarger lens on a bellows for makro photography, the off the film plane metering of modern digital cameras adapt to it perfectly for pin sharp images

[@philmtx3fr]

Thx Nigel for this video putting back at their right place the moderate fast lenses. I think completely stupid this « run to the fastest » competition which leads to these over priced f1.8 or 1.4 wide angle lenses. Why paying near 1k$ for a 20mm f 1.8 when you use this lens 95% of the time between f5.6 and f11… it s nuts. This doesn’t make the happiness of the photographers but the margins of the manufacturers. Bokeh is usable for 50mm and longer but not really for 35mm and shorter.

[@charliejg]

I have a Canon FD135mm f3.5mm lens that I really like. I even used it to shoot some photos of my nephew's T-Ball games last summer. Loads of fun!

[@teleaddict23]

That is a fantastic lens. I used it on my Canon AE1 and the background blur at f3.5 was great

[@charliejg]

@@teleaddict23 Yes! That really surprised me. But, that distance ration between you and the subject vs. subject and background comes into play. With sports the background is much further away outdoors. The sharpness also really surprised me. It's a fun lens.

[@teleaddict23]

@@charliejg yes the sharpness was good too. One of my favourite portraits was taken with that lens. I was surprised how good it was considering the price.

[@charliejg]

@@teleaddict23 Oh yeah, that's one cool thing about vintage lenses, the prices are good. I only paid $35.00 for mine. I also have an FD50mm f1.8 and a Pentax 50mm f1.7. That Pentax 50 is really nice too.

[@thomaseriksson6256]

I use a Zeiss Distagon T*18mmF3.5 to my Nikon D700

[@davidb9682]

Oh Nigel, don't say you've fallen for the camera off to the side, while you continue looking forward!!! Ahhh. Personally I've grown to really dislike this camera technique that's been in vogue for a few years. It's like in the old TV days, when the presenter didn't know which camera they were supposed to be looking into. Ah well, each to his own. PS. I agree with your sentiment in this video though. I'm always shooting f5.6 or 8 anyway, as I usually want things in focus.

[@punkrachmaninoff]

The trusty SMC Pentax 35mm f3.5 (early k version) lives on my Ricoh X-R7.

[@ЭтоДрючинский]

I'm not scared of 3.5. My Fomapan 100 is ;D

[@ArtDecoArtNouveau]

Just a slight correction - the stunning "Barry Lyndon" was shot 1973/74 and released in 1975.

[@Digital_Photog1995]

Have you shot any of the Konica lenses 28mm f3.5, 135mm and others on a crop body like the Canon M 5 or others??? Curious!

[@shedtime_au]

I've recently been referred by a more experienced photographer to a family of lenses that are F4.0 and have a very weird mount. They sell for peanuts and the quality is excellent. No adapters available but this can be surmounted. As you rightly say, the camera will simply compensate by upping the ISO anyhow, so what's the big deal? I'm not trying to shoot by candlelight.

[@rossyannis3000]

Many thanks Zenography for this post. I've searched on several forums the lists of OM Zuiko prime lenses and cannot find the 35mm f3.5.... Could you please confirm?

[@zenography7923]

Sorry, I'm mistaken - I meant the 28mm f3.5.

[@kruno7150]

I generally dont have problem with f3.5 lenses (even more, I really like MOG Primagon 4.5/35) however, i'm biased towards Soviet lenses - their quality control was disaster. For example, it took me 3-4 copies to find good industar 50-2. Industar 50? only good copy i found is old, collapsible one (but with them there is another challenge with adapter...).... Back on the topic, I agree, 3.5 lenses can be much fun and give you amazing results

[@chrisreich40]

Most twin-lens reflexes shoot at a maximum aperture of 3.5.

[@jimgraves4197]

I have a few f/3.5 lenses. Industar 50-2 50mm f/3.5, Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 and Meyer-Optik 30mm f/3.5 Lydith. Of the three it's a close call between the Zuiko and Lydith for top spot, but the Industar isn't far behind

[@arcanics1971]

Some of my fave shots of yours were taken with the 3.5 Lydith- the fountain ones.

[@jimgraves4197]

@@arcanics1971 Would those be the frozen fountain shots? I am particularly happy with those.

[@ricknicholson5894]

Don't know if you are familiar with Herb Keppler but he was very active in the photography industry in the States. He worked with a number of magazines, his last before his passing was Popular Photography. He would write an article in every issue which really made the magazine. He was also a very practical man incorporating this trait into his hobby/work. A quote I love and that reflects the man is as follows: “Why does the concept of ‘telephoto’ always seem more exciting than ‘wide angle’? For many, it’s the possibility of snooping. A newspaper front page sporting telephoto pictures of Jennifer Lopez will certainly garner more eyeballs than wide-angle photos.” (Popular Photography & Imaging, February 2006) Another: “The truth is that I probably have collected more sturdy tripods than anyone else within a hundred-mile radius. But unless I’m within easy walking distance of home or can stash the tripod in the car for convenient transportation, you will find me happily taking pictures with a flimsy tripod at hand.” (Popular Photography, February 1993) Herb preferred lenses that weren't "fast." He said when he was out shooting, he preferred light but slower rather than fast and heavy. I had the financial good fortune to clear my photography gear deck and "start over." Being a Canonite, I of course purchased L lenses. I could easily afford the faster f2.8 gear but I bought the f4 versions not because I was cheap (which I am) but because the lenses were significantly lighter. Take for example the Canon 70 - 200 f2.8 lens. This lens is easily my most favourite zoom, great colours, sharp, everything you want except for weight. And married to a Canon 5D mk4 was a workout. Instead I bought the f4 version as I wanted sniper gear, light and functional, accurate and tough. A few years after my f4 purchases I developed cancer, after chemo I was very weak. I was especially happy with my lense choices in particular their weight. I do have faster lenses in my quiver, but pretty much all primes. And even with Fuji, instead of purchasing the 50mm f1.4 and bought the f2 version, a very decent lens. I have found the great majority of my pics are shot at f5.6 and smaller. With contemporary cameras with amazing ISO, I now set the ISO to auto and play with shutter and aperture. Slower lenses with a camera with decent ISO performance isn't the issue it was pre-digital.

[@zenography7923]

I entirely appreciate your thinking here - I've always liked smaller and lighter gear, but when various discs in my spine decided to give way I appreciated it even more - can't really carry the heavier stuff too far anymore so long live small, light and slow!

[@sclogse1]

Feel free to tell us what your ebay page is. By the way, Kubrick's chaffeur (an ex race cardriver) and all around man wrote a marvelous book about his time with Kubrick. Easily my favorite read about Stan.

[@crazygeorgelincoln]

I appear to have missed the introduction to the attic video, spent most of the time wondering what happened to have you sent up there! Hardly the weather for it. My issue with the little slower lenses is historic cleaning marks ,a small smudge , circular marks like some animal has cleaned it with a brillow pad or just your standard dusty lens dwelling objects seem to have a more significant effect on a tiny piece of glass than comparably abused larger glass.

[@charleslawrence7327]

Maybe the photography police have put him in photography prison

[@tomcruz5495]

Stanley got 3 lenses fabricated by Zeiss for the NASA. Only 2 of them became usable at 50mm and at 28mm

[@d.r.martin6301]

I shoot at 5.6 or 8 most of the time, hardly ever below 4. I rarely shoot in low light situations that would require 2 or wider. So I'm definitely in for a good 3.5 lens.

[@Warrior_Resisting_Colonialism]

You should step outside your comfort zone. You're missing out a LOT of missed opportunities.

[@whatsonmytable]

How is the Canon FL 100 mm f 3.5? I've always loved your videos. Please do let me know your views on the same lens.

[@zenography7923]

Never shot one I'm afraid so can't comment!

[@rollingnome]

I've got 3 F3.5 lenses - a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 28mm, same in M Series & a K (52mm) Series as well. All are sublime!

[@emmaeilefsen7214]

they make great images! but manual focus on an SLR with f3.5 is not at all ideal.

[@johnstaples1606]

How long have you been stuck in your loft.. it must be weeks by now?

[@davidwarwick7968]

Many modern kit zoom lenses are slower than f3.5!

[@philipslighting8240]

Have you been sent to the loft.......😁

[@jeanmuermans3870]

I think that Olympus OM 35mm f3,5 is never built. Only the f2 and the f2,8. I only know there are 3 types 28mm the f2 , f2,8 and f3,5 . Please explaine

[@skazhenyj]

Who knows, I guess he probably confused the focal lengths, 28mm and 35mm most likely; and didn't notice it during talking and editing the video. If he meant 28mm 3.5, I can only agree that it's a great lens (although F2.8 version is pretty much the same stopped down). 35mm F3.5 doesn't exist in this form.

[@sdhute]

If i it’s not a lens Im shooting portraits with I don’t need 1.x lenses. I’m usually at 5.6/8.0 when I’m out shooting street

[@davejenx]

I have 1.1 1.4 lots of them lots of f4 my 3 lens kit is 2.8 3.5 5.6

[@cschaus3769]

Danke!

[@zenography7923]

Und danke auch!

[@swansong007]

To be honest a lot of fast modern day lenses from top manufactures such as f1.2 and f1.4 etc don’t really get sharp until F4 So why not buy 3.5 lenses ?

[@ShutterNChill]

Here's the link to the Stanley Kubrick candlelight scene: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4KoaGZ9edRnidE That's a really fast lens! Thank you, I did not know before how it was done.

[@yamui2166]

You got to use.what you have and prefect your craft.

[@Uncle_Devil]

I mean, I basically LIVE at f/8, nothing wrong AT ALL with f/3.5

[@dedskin1]

im not scared of F3.5 , i shoot on it regularly .

[@mikemcgrath5188]

almost all modern zooms are 3.5 to 5.6 or slower. i wish zooms were 2.8 to 3.5 but then they get big and bulky and harder to maintain consistent quality. my fav vintage 3.5 is the 20mm Nikkor AIS manual. pricey but worth it. LEDGENDARY! boosting ISO is great if your camera has a good noise reduction algo, otherwise loss of fine detail in your super sharp lens and jpeg artifacts.

[@yamui2166]

Saker

[@___15]

well, now i want to buy industar 22, fortunately in russia such lenses are 3-5 times cheaper

[@thegroove2000]

IM SHITTING MYSELF. 3.5. NOOOOO!!!!!!!!

[@Stewz66]

💛

[@yamui2166]

Salary lenses are the best They have super Bokha

[@absurdfool]

either like or dislike, scared??