>>4463871
True, was done on a 28/1.8, and 35mm was the effective FL I was going for because I knew the water would magnify the shot because of how light travels through water, and it got the job done at 28mm, only no-photo gearfags who jerk off to DxO scores all day and pop into gear threads only to say
>ACKSHUALLY
would have spotted that.
>>4463861
>Mentioned twice
>mfw
