c/photography is a community centered on the practice of amateur and professional photography. You can come here to discuss the gear, the technique and the culture related to the art of photography. You can also share your work, appreciate the others' and constructively critique each others work.
Please, be sure to read the rules before posting.
THE RULES
This Lemmy Community is open to civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, photography. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted.
All discussion threads must be photography related such as latest gear or art news, gear acquisition advices, photography related questions, etc...
This Lemmy Community is about photography and discussion around photography, not religion or politics.
All is in the title. This is a casual discussion community.
One post, one photo in the limit of 3 pictures in a 24 hours timespan. Do not flood the community with your pictures. Be patient, select your best work, and enjoy.
If you want contructive critiques, use [Critique Wanted] in your title.
Flair NSFW posts (nudity, gore, ...)
Do not share your portfolio (instagram, flickr, or else...)
The aim of this community is to invite everyone to discuss around your photography. If you drop everything with one link, this become pointless. Portfolio posts will be deleted. You can however share your portfolio link in the comment section if another member wants to see more of your work.
Personally I dig this weird little fella
It's an old Soviet 16mm film projector lens adapted to a different vintage lens's helicoid then adapted to Micro 4/3.
It's a 50mm f/1.2 lens and it takes some weird photos. It's not perfect (especially if the area is well lit) but it takes some interesting photos with a little practice.
Edit: And being a lens made for 16mm film it takes pictures just like a normal micro 4/3 50mm lens would.
The main lens I use now (Canon 5D Mk3) is a Sigma 50-500. It's more fiddly than the Canon stuff, and if I wanted to pay twice as much I could get a Canon lens that did a better job at one end or the other of it's range, but when you have decent light both of the 50 and somewhere close to the 500 can take some pretty nice pictures. If you need one specific shot, my Dad's Canon 200-400 is definitely more reliable, but I really like being able to go on a hike with one lens and get a variety of types of shots, and I take hundreds to thousands on a good hike so I'm not bothered by missing a single shot.
I also have a 24mm f/1.8 macro from them that's even more niche (despite the wide angle, it's not awesome for landscapes), but if you can get something close range, I really like the bokeh of the background and the subject is extremely sharp.