[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 47 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



File: Speedmaster.jpg (63 KB, 500x500)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
> hurr durr, the Sony mount isn't big enough for fast lenses.
> muh nikon
> muh canon
> No fast primes for Sony

https://www.dailycameranews.com/2019/02/speedmaster-50mm-f-0-95-iii-lens-announced-for-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras/?fbclid=IwAR2-Zi4L__Z_dkPXRs76nPukfaUTiMBOiafQXW152zcTkHnefvUTkeKJkf8

Get wrecked, faggots.
>>
>>3439941
No AF
>>
>>3439947
Like the upcoming Nikkor 58mm f/0.95 S Noct.
>>
>>3439947

That's a criticism of the lens itself. This thread is about how idiots seem to think the Sony mount is too small for fast apertures when it clearly isn't. Adding AF to this lens wouldn't affect the aperture capabilities, it would just make the lens a bit larger/heavier.
>>
>>3439971
It's shitty lens when open, though. Zeiss would never allow Sony to put it's name on it with such as bad open performance.
>>
>>3439971
A 50mm f/0.95 should have an effective aperture diameter of approximately 52.63mm wide-open, this is 6.53mm MORE than the E-mount's throat diameter.

Compare to approximately 55.1mm aperture and 55mm Z-mount throat diameter for the upcoming Noct.

Note that quoted focal length are not always exact, so for example the Noct's effective aperture diameter might be a bit under the 55.1mm I mention (and same thing for the Speedster).
>>
>>3439994
>A 50mm f/0.95 should have an effective aperture diameter of approximately 52.63mm wide-open, this is 6.53mm MORE than the E-mount's throat diameter.
I have to assume there’s a way around that. Otherwise, the Noctilux would max out at f/1.13 (Leica M’s mount diameter is 44mm), but the older Noctlux is 1.0 and the newer one is f/0.95.

I could see a random Chinese company releasing a nominally f/0.95 lens that’s mount-limited to “only” f/1.0, but I can’t imagine that a company like Leica would risk the potential reputation hit of doing that.

I’m not an optical engineer, though, so I don’t know for sure.
>>
File: link.jpg (114 KB, 1500x951)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
maximum aperture is determined by mount diameter and flange focal distance. these are slides from a recent sony presentation. reviewers don't know shit

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.0.19
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution119 dpi
Vertical Resolution119 dpi
>>
>>3439994
>>3440005
The lens doesn't need an aperture diameter of 52mm, it needs an entrance pupil of 52mm, which is not actually something you can measure; it's derived from the optical formula. In any case, the apparent location of the aperture is not in the throat of the mount. Having a large mount gives the lens designer more freedom to have larger elements closer to the focal plane, but it doesn't determine how fast a lens can possibly be. The hard part is making fast lenses that don't suck, and the lens in question isn't that good.
>>
>>3440010
>>3440013
That makes sense.

Looking forward to the Nikon Z-mount 58mm/0.58.
>>
File: hqd1efault.jpg (13 KB, 480x360)
13 KB
13 KB JPG
>sony
>>
Nikon's Z mout size and stupid people falling for marketing is probably one of the only reasons this topic is around. There are many other Fullframe lens mounts smaller then the E mount. Nikon F, Leica M, M42...?? They are all shit and their lenses are all shit as well?

Lenses with such large apertures are kind of a meme anyways. For closeup the DOF is way to narrow to be of any practical use and they are too soft most of the times wide open.
>>
>>3439994

The effective aperture for a given f-stop is not the same as the mount diameter. This is literally the basic concept of refraction through lens elements. It's part of the reason that a 400mm f.2.8 lens is like 165mm on the front element but still only 46.1mm at the lens mount point. I can't believe you didn't realize that many, many lenses exist with larger front elements than back elements...
>>
>>3439950
That everyone thought was a bad idea...
>>
>>3439941
Difference between this one and Nikons 58mm f/0.95 is that Nikon is expected to be proper pro lens, as opposed of a little toy too fool around. You need high performance when wide open, or else it's pointless, and nobody will buy it. At the prices these lenses go for, customers know what they're buying and will carefully test and check everything.
>>
>>3439994
I love this niggerlicious discussion on optics, when on one hand people decide to accept a gross oversimplification (f/number=physical aperture size=physical exit pupil size), and then go on to nitpick minute details in the dimensions of the mounts to reach conclusions.


The physical aperture size almost never matches the exit pupil size, unless it's a single element lens with the diaphragm placed behind the element.
In complex, multi-element lenses, where the diaphragm is between the lens elements, the exit pupil (and thus the minimum mount size required) is determined by the lens formula, specifically what happens to the lightrays after passing the diaphragm.

Many times, the "image" is shrunk by the elements after the diaphragm, and thus all the rays passing through a physical aperture size of say diameter 50mm can easily be shrunk to fit in through a hole of diameter 25mm. In that case, you don't need a larger rear element/mount, because even if you had one, you'd gain no extra rays.

In short, unless the lens is absolutely symmetrical, there can be a huge difference in physical aperture size and exit pupil (=rear element=mount) size.
And even in the symmetrical case, you need to know the exact position of the diaphragm among the elements, to be able to tell the exit pupil/rear element size requirement accurately.
>>
>>3440031
>>3440031
The F mount physical constraints were controversial ever since autofocus happened and Canon made the jump to EF. Sony boys and their vast knowledge of cameras spanning as far back as 2014 are always a good laugh.

I’m sure Sony will move to a new mount in a decade or so anyways to push along the obsolescence.
>>
>>3439941
Nobody cares.
>>
>>3439941
looks cool. might get it when it's on out. F 0.95 just bokeh my shit up. if it was 35mm i'd have easily bought it because there's so much 50mm glass around and you can get a F1.4 for like fucking dicks now.

i'm still looking for a good 16-20mm F 1.8 or less (pref 1.4) which will never fucking happen.
>>
File: gottasnapfast.png (143 KB, 900x800)
143 KB
143 KB PNG
>no fast primes for sony

G Master f/1.8 135mm
>>
>>3441947

I think you missed the point of this entire thread. There are dozens of f/1.8 lenses for Sony, the point is that dipshits keep complaining that the Sony mount isn't large enough to handle lenses with apertures like f/1.2, which is wrong.
>>
>>3441949
You seem knowledgable. Why is it either difficult to find, or expensive as fuck for a FE lens to have both a low mm AND be fast? i.e 16mm f1.4 or lower.
>>
>>3442091
Also is there a real technological constraint for a Sony full frame FE mount in terms of a lens or is the literal gripe coming from photographers with tiny hands and glass wrists and forearms?
>>
>>3442091

Wide, fast lenses are expensive to manufacture. You need a much bigger front element for 1.4 than you would for 1.8, which are already difficult to manufacture. That also means that you also need more corrective elements for the higher refractive index of that big honking piece of glass, which apart from the material cost requires a lot of R&D.
>>
File: DUDE_WHAT.jpg (9 KB, 500x500)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>3442091
>i.e 16mm f1.4 or lower
pic related
>>3442092
Yes, moving fastly big chunk of glass is hard. Correcting a complex lens scheme is hard.
>>3440919
>bashing Sony about obsolescence
Look at all that compatibility in the F-mount lineup! LOL.
>>
>>3442102
Pretty much. Sony sort of admitted to it in an interview, saying that there's no market for quality sub f/1.
>>
>>3442104
I was just asking :( there a 24mm 1.4 that's pretty pricey.

Thanks for the info!
>>
>>3439947
Is there/will there be an adapter to make it AF?
>>
File: umdbq1luqfy11.jpg (21 KB, 334x506)
21 KB
21 KB JPG
*aghem*
fuck sony and fuck moopco
>>
It's an undersized mount, deal with it instead of coping badly like this.
It's not like it makes a difference for 95% of people, and those who do care about it will be using DSLRs untill Canon and Nikon bring out more lenses for their mirrorless mounts.
>>
>>3439941
Fast lenses and shallow DOF are the ultimate meme. Learn how to compose an entire frame. If you really need a faster shutter speed turn up your ISO.
>>
>>3445476
Bump please respond
>>
>>3445476
>>3445861
only if it's m-mount
>>
>>3445864
Oh really? I thought I must've mistaken what I heard. So just to be clear, are there any e mount manual focus lenses that can use an adapter to become autofocus?
>>
>>3445868
no
>>
>>3442091
Find me any ff equivalent lens that's 16mm f1.4 or faster or wider.

Fucking dumbass turd gobbler.

>>3445488
What makes it undersized? As has been shown, it's big enough for f0.95

>>3445868
Are you a fucking spaz?

Where would the adapter go without changing flange distance?

You can convert any mf lens to af if there's a leica m to whatrver mount you need, as tech art do an af leica mount converter that moves the whole lens back and forth.
>>
Viable options for 0.95 or f/1.4 I can get for Sony (a7m3) that won't blow out my pockets? I can budget around $1800USD(tax including).
t.iwantmorebokeh
>>
>>3446130
If manual focus is okay, 7Artisans makes a relatively cheap 50/1.1 in Leica M mount you can easily adapt to Sony.
>>
>>3446130
The pic you posted looks slight télé.
If you want to obliterate the background, why not a fast 85mm or 135mm? You can find plenty of those at f/2 or for very reasonable prices. Even an 135mm f/2.8 will provide plenty bokeh.

Also even the best 85mm lenses at f/1.4 or f/1.2 are within your budget.
You want only native options? And AF?
>>
File: 1200px-Leica_Camera.svg.png (73 KB, 1200x1200)
73 KB
73 KB PNG
It was just propaganda against Sony.

The L-mount was dying. Leica SL was a fiasco.
Leica got butthurt, so they made a circlejerk with Panasonic and Sigma to throw as much shit on Sony as possible.
The trio of weaklings gathered to attack the strong.

Nikon fans added gasoline to the fire, because why not. They want to take down Sony as well.
(Nikon fans! not Nikon itself)
>>
File: productshot2.jpg (855 KB, 3000x2002)
855 KB
855 KB JPG
>>3446168
Non native options are fine since another anon said there are ways to adapt m mount to sony. I know many of them are strictly MF but I can live with that through practice and trying one of techart's af adapters. I see they support several mount types now.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-1
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2017 (Macintosh)
PhotographerTSE HON NING
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3000
Image Height2002
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2017:09:19 12:52:12
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/22.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating500
Lens Aperturef/22.0
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length90.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width3000
Image Height2002
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3446443
If you're set on a Leica you can get a summicron f/2, either R or M.

But why not try a cheap Jupiter-9 first? 85mm f/2 with a sonnar design with beautiful bokeh. It's around $100-150 or so, so give it a try first.
>>
>>3439941
Sony needs to release a 58mm f/1.2 with AF
>>
>>3446473
Thanks a lot for the suggestion. 85mm f2 at that price sounds very nice!
>>
>>3440010
The best part of the presentation was Sony saying that the theoretical maximum for Nikon Z-mount is f/0.58, not f/0.65 like Nikon said. Basically, Nikon can't even get its own numbers right.
>>
>>3441947
I'm getting this fucking thing tomorrow.
>>
>>3439941
I want one.
For an A7S3.
Only then can I become the King of the Night(tm).
>>
File: fast.png (248 KB, 700x377)
248 KB
248 KB PNG
>>3446553

People seem to forget that Sony's engineers were once Minolta's. They are easily on the same level as Canon and Nikon.
>>
>>3439941
The lens mount is way bigger than Nikon and Canon dSLR mounts though. As the mount diameter will appear bigger at a closer distance than one further away (dSLR mounts) not to mention its already physically wider than Nikon F mount.
>>
>>3446130
>want bokeh

>asks for apertures that aren't found on long lenses

Fucking hell you're a spaz anon, just get the 70 200 2.8 and stop whining.

>>3446478
Why? Their 50mm 1.4 has a lower t value than canons 50mm 1.2.
>>
>>3446608
New or used? Either way, enjoy it. I wish you many fun years of shooting the creamiest of bokeh portraits.
>>
>>3446677
Minolta didn't do anything noteworthy for decades leading up to the sony acquisition, they were a shell of their old self and all their good people retired, just a name.
>>
>>3446758
*citation required*
>>
>>3446767
Most of their accomplishments were in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
They didn't do shit in the 90s and 00s, sony bought them out in 2006.
There you go.
Do you think the engineers that were around in their heyday found some magic life potion that allows them to live on forever, or maybe the new generation wasn't as successful?
>>
>>3446478
THIS. Why is it taking them so long? Fuck a 1.4
>>
>>3446713
>Why?
Cause it can be a revival of the 58mm f1.2 Rokkor
>>
>>3442091
If you want a 16mm f1.4 you go to based Fuji, not Sony.
>>
>>3446736
New. It's on order along with a 70-200 since I'm autistic and I make enough money to do so.
>>
>>3446677
>we will never see a F0.63 for sony/leica or F0.58 for the Nikon.

Brand rivalries aside, this is a sad realization. :(
>>
>>3449096
Fuji don't offer an 11mm f1.0 lens though.

I don't want a 24mm f2 lens with crop lens sharpness for nearly $1000 dollars, lmfao.
>>
>>3449106
>nearly $1000
Learn to grey market. Fuji prices really aren't that bad at eGlobal or Tobydeals, sites like that. I work a minimum wage job and still can afford plenty of Fuji glass. Already own the 27mm f2.8, 18-55mm and the 35mm f2. Going to buy more soon.
>>
File: 1316480982048.jpg (61 KB, 630x584)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>3449096
Thanks mr. shill, but the Sigma F1,4 is much cheaper, a third the price of the Fujifilm.
>>
>>3449111
While not being half as good/sharp or as compact. The 16mm f1.4 is one of the best lenses ever made. Sigma is just cheap massive shit and always have been.
>>
>>3449112
The bigger lens is usually the sharper lens, especially in the corners, but thanks for trying mr. shill. I'm sure fujifilm will have great revenue this quarter thanks to your hard work.
>>
>>3449112
No, fuji just use very dated designs in their lenses, similar to voigtlander. Small, and sharp in the centre, noisy bokeh, bad vignettes, bad corners, lots of coma and chromabs.

I sometimes buy voigts for my sony, but it's for their character, not their quality.
>>
File: IMG_20190130_190554.jpg (3.9 MB, 3120x4160)
3.9 MB
3.9 MB JPG
>>3449114
>>3449117
I've already owned a Sony A6000 and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's too huge for most purposes that I'd use it for (street photography). I think the Sigma trinity is overrated simply because they're the only f1.4 lenses available for Sony. I'm much happier with Fuji now but that's just me. Unlike most of /p/ I'm not LARPing and have used this gear before.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3449119
>I think the Sigma trinity is overrated simply because they're the only f1.4 lenses available for Sony
Nah, they also have the F2,8 trio which are much compact.
>>
>>3449121
Yeah sure but they're not nearly as quick to focus or weather resistant like the Fuji F2s. Funny how I'm accused of being a shill but if anybody doubts the Sigma e-mount lenses, even though I've owned them and didn't like them, there's a full on sperg out.
>>
>>3449143
But they are super cheap. I have seen them go for 130-160 dollars.
>>
>>3449119

>it's too big for street

>I'm not larping

Dude, your gearfagging over gear for street. You're the biggest fucking larper on the board.

>>3449143
Af speed on sony cameras is dictated by the body and processor, not so much the lens. The a6000 is notoriously the worst af performer in sonys lineup lacking the on sensor PDAF of better models.

I used to own an xe1, i know how bad fuji af can be ;) your argument is disingenuous.

Also, I can buy a sony a7ii and 28mm f2 for less than the price of one fuji lens... The a7ii has ibis and is full frame, making it completely incomparable to the fuji when it comes to low light performance and resolution.
>>
I'm toying with the idea of a Voigtlander 50 f/1.2...might even fuck around and slap it on an AF adapter
>>
>>3449147
>But they are super cheap. I have seen them go for 130-160 dollars.
Repeatedly saying "but they're cheap" isn't really an argument. Good quality things cost more money and compared to the Fuji F2 trinity, the Sigma 2.8s aren't really in the same league in build quality or features. I'm as much of a poorfag as the rest of you but I still manage to afford Fuji gear just fine especially used or from the grey market (eGlobal is my preferred site).

>>3449166
It IS too big for street. As well as that, the A6000 shutter is loud as fuck and there's no electronic shutter option. Gigantic lens that resembles a telephoto + thunder clap shutter = bad camera for street. That's just the fact of it. The X-T2 does everything I want and I don't see why switching for legitimate reasons like that is a problem. I'm not going to keep using a system that isn't suitable for me just because of some rabid Sony fanboys on /p/.

The XE1 uses an old X-Trans sensor and processor. I use an X-T2 and when paired with a 35mm f2 the focusing is lightning fast, much quicker than anything I've experienced with Sony especially in Boost Mode. Saying "yeah I owned a low end old fuji once and it was slow lol" is the real disingenuous argument to be honest. And again, circling back to cost, you can pick up an X-T1 and the 18-55 for dirt cheap used or refurb on Fuji's site if you don't want to risk ebay. So constantly screaming that Fuji is somehow extremely expensive is also disingenuous. I manage to get my gear without maxing out credits cards or worrying financially, you just need to be smart about it like you would with a Sony system. The grey market and used market are your friends.
>>
>>3449213
>saying "but they're cheap" isn't really an argument
It actually is, especially to the majority.

You're just a minority who thinks you represent everybody.
>>
>>3449216
Like I said, I'm a poorfag too. I work full time minimum wage, I don't earn a ton of money. But I've been through the phase of buying cheap vintage lenses, I've been through the Sony phase, and now I prefer to buy things that are truly quality. When I sold my A6000 and Sigma I made £500, my X-T2 was £600. So I paid about £100. The 27mm f2.8 was £106 from eGlobal so I really wasn't out of pocket and I'm a lot happier taking a lot more photos than I was with the A6000 meme now I have a truly compact sharp lens + electronic shutter. Using quality gear that I actually want to use matters more to me now than "muh cheap poorfag gear" that gathers dust. Eventually everyone else who is truly into photography will realise the same thing.
>>
>>3449221
>I'm a poorfag too
Well then, you should be able to understand why other people than you find low pricing attractive.

You are not the prototype for mankind. When you grow up, you will realise this.
>>
>>3449224
I am grown up m8, instead of putting up with subpar poorfag equipment that I simply did not want to use and was gathering dust I followed my gut and bought into a system that I'd be excited to use every day. In order to take more photos. Surely that's the point of photography, not just buying up gear you don't need just because you can afford it? I'd rather save up a little longer and buy quality instead.
>>
>>3449227
>I am grown up m8
And yet you still think your are the center of the world, the standard template for mankind.

Sounds like you still are a kid inside.
>>
>>3449221
The a6k costs less than a quarter of the xt2 you disingenous ass hat.

You're comparing a $300 body with a $200 lens to a $1200 body with $900 lens...

$2100 gets you an a7iii and samyang 35 2.8. Much better in every respect. Size, af speed, resolution, low light performance, future proof.
>>
>>3449229
I don't think that at all. I've conveyed my history of photography gear and why I decided to switch from Sony to Fuji. How you think I'm considering myself the """standard template for mankind""" is beyond me. I'm just trying to be smarter with what funds I have after being in the same position as a lot of /p/ before buying vintage lenses and Sigma stuff. That's all.
>>
>>3449213
>claiming any lens is "too big for street"

Thanks anon, I've not laughed like that in a long time. You're a massive beta faggot.
>>
>>3449244
>I don't think that at all.
Your behaviour throughout the thread has shown this.
You claim to know better than everybody else.
You claim to know everybody else will eventually get tired of Sigma lenses and buy fujifilm.
In reality you are just a small minority of the photography community.
>>
>>3449232
Fujifilm themselves offer the X-T2 for much less than that in their refurb scheme. The price is nowhere near $1200 anymore.
>>
>>3449232
A6000 and X-T2 aren't even comparable.
A6300 and X-T2 would be a.more accurate comparison.
>>
>>3449250
This is true.

(The problem is Fujifilm doesn't have an equivalent to the 6000 in terms of AF speed)
>>
>>3449232
>expensive body
>cheap mid-tier glass
Why do I always see sonyggers advocating this? Stop spending all your money on a fancy camera if you can't afford decent and multiple lenses.
I wouldn't really call a7iii future proof either considering Sony build quality.
>>
>>3449246
You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying, maybe on purpose in order to undermine me or maybe I'm not being clear enough.

When I first started with /p/ I was a clueless faggot and bought a Sony Nex 5n. I also blew a ton of money on the cheapest vintage lenses I could afford meaning I couldn't afford any Sony lenses as a result. I then migrated to an A6000 and eventually decided to try the Sigma meme. Eventually I realised Sony isn't for me and moved. I also focused on getting GOOD gear instead of a LOT of gear at cheap prices like I used to.

I'm not saying AT ALL that everyone will get tired of Sigma and move to Fuji. If you love your Sony and Sigma setup more power to you. But what I'm saying is that, as a poorfag, most people go through a phase where they buy a lot of subpar gear instead of saving for one quality piece at a time. That's what I do now and it works because I WANT to use my camera now. With my Sony Sigma setup I didn't because the camera and lens wasn't for me. I only bought it because /p/ kept shilling it.

Tl;Dr people can do whatever they want with whatever camera they want but if you're a poorfag it's better to save and buy quality shit rather than a lot of shit just because it's in your budget. Learn to budget and get quality gear you'll actually use instead of a huge collection of vintage lenses gathering dust in a box somewhere. That's all.
>>
>>3449256
This is heretical thinking, stop opposing the dogma of the church of Sony.
>>
>>3449256
Well, let's just say your post here>>3449096 added to the character I described.

I don't think I'm wrong. But I accept it if you changed your mind.
>>
>>3449252
Yeh it does, the xe1 and xpro1

The a6k is a bit better, but only just.

>>3449254
Because a sensor twice as large produces images just as sharp with a lens with half the resolving power.

Doesn't take a genius to realise 1000 on the body and 500 on each lens is a lot cheaper than 500 on the body and 1000 for each lens. Also, the skies the limit on full frame/sony mount, whereas once you realise crop is a false economy, fuji leaves you nowhere to turn.

>a7iii isn't future proof because it might die if you leave it underwater

I said future proof, not idiot proof, with the support fe mount gets from the cine industry, it's as good as guaranteed for the long run as a good mount to invest in. Fuji, nikon z and canon eos/r cannot say the same.
>>
>>3449268
>false economy
Oh it's this retard again, lmao.
>>
>>3449272
That, that's not a counter argument.
And he has a good point.
Let me guess, you're another salty fuji user?
>>
>>3449273
Don't really have anything to say to a person that claims crop sensors cost 1k and full frame equivalent would cost 500.
I wasn't talking about weather sealing either, but now that you bring it up, it is nearly non existing on the a7iii
>>
>>3449277
>crop sensors cost 1000 and ff cost 500

Oh I'm sorry, I never knew you were retarded, give my love to the church.
>>
>>3449258
It's objective truth that the Fuji 16mm f1.4 is massively more respected than the Sigma 16mm f1.4. It's widely considered to be THE best lens Fuji has ever made, one of the top crop lenses ever made on any system, and if that's the one lens someone would want from a camera system, the Fuji 16mm f1.4 would be the one to go for out of the two unless you're incapable of saving up for it for any reason. That's why I said if you want a 16mm f1.4 you go to Fuji.

I accept maybe it's too pricey for some, but if you have a full or part-time job it isn't a massive ask to save up for it. I've seen it go for half its retail price used in excellent condition. If you want the best of the two it's worth it if that's the kind of focal length and aperture combo you're looking for. If you're willing to go for the cheaper option then sure but thinking they're in the same league optically it isn't close.
>>
>>3449282
I don't really give a fuck how you you respect them.

I want to see head to head comparisons.
>>
>>3449282
Fuji don't have a 16mm f1.4

They have a 24mm f2

Sony have a 28mm f2, it's about $200 second hand.
>>
>>3449289
>They have the same specs therefore they must be the same.
Holy shit Sony specfags are the worst.
I guess a cheap Russian manual focus prime is the same as a voigtlander prime then.
>>
>>3449322
You sort of have a point.

But if we actually make a comparison, it usually ends with Fujifags crying and complaining.
For example that chart showing 85mm vs 56mm.
>>
>>3449283
Holy non-native English speaker Batman. I don't mean respected as in respect given. I mean that it's highly rated lens and considered to be one of Fuji's sharpest.

Nobody on YouTube seems to have thought to compare the two directly but there's plenty of samples on Flickr etc.

>>3449289
Yes they do. Pic related. They've had a 16mm f1.4 for years. Unless you're trying to be snarky about the crop factor which applies the same to Sigma.

https://youtu.be/0cjvh0QeWEE
https://youtu.be/YMb3TJzVWCQ

The 23mm f2 is an entirely different lens but they've just released a 16mm f2.8 in their cheaper WR F2 line. It's supposed to be pretty good but obviously f2.8 isn't for everyone.
>>
File: 1490687013735.jpg (1.46 MB, 1603x2247)
1.46 MB
1.46 MB JPG
>>3449329
>Holy non-native English speaker Batman. I don't mean respected as in respect given
That means nothing in the end.

Tony Northrup praise the 56mm as an incredibly sharp lens, for example.
But when it's actually compared, people cry foulplay and point out it's meant to be a soft lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2015-08-28T15:58:06-04:00
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1603
Image Height2247
>>
>>3449335
>Photoshop 2015 with no resize applied
Huh, a Chosis made meme to defend Sony. I wonder how credible this could be.
>>
File: 1552645296014.jpg (222 KB, 747x844)
222 KB
222 KB JPG
>>3449337
That's a new reaction. Usually you just get butthurt and say it's supposed to be dreamy.
>>
>>3449338
I've never discussed the 56mm with you, you must be thinking of another anon. I just know your exif when I see it. Found a job yet Chris?
>>
>>3449339
'You' doesn't always mean you as a person. It sometimes also mean 'you people', as in a group.
>>
>>3449340
What, "Fujifags"? At least I know I'm debating with a complete psycho who diddles children now and I can safely back out of the conversation.
>>
File: 1460327614415.png (183 KB, 400x500)
183 KB
183 KB PNG
>>3449341
>Morphing 'people' into 'fags'
This tells us more about you thoughts than you think.

Distrust.
Aggression.
Expecting enmity.
And generally really unpleasant person to be around.
>>
>>3449342
And this tells us more about your thoughts than you think.

Pedophilic
Unrepentant
Stupid
Autistic

Enjoy the rest of your day Chris.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
File: 1291497652498.jpg (91 KB, 554x439)
91 KB
91 KB JPG
>>3449345
I think you are not familiar with imageboard culture. Sometimes a reaction image is just a reaction image and not an expression of sexual desire.
So in your desperation to make a comeback you resort to illogical lies and slander.

That's a pathetic performance right there, even worse than the Fujifilm lenses.
>>
File: predator.png (183 KB, 1146x473)
183 KB
183 KB PNG
>>3449347
If it's lies and slander, why wipe that entire the reddit account of all posts once we found it? Oh yeah, because you didn't anticipate being found out with proof that you are an actual predator of children.

I know you're not going to give an actual answer because you're permabanned for shit like pic related and you're not able to admit it's you without being banned on sight. Hope you find the medication you're looking for to suppress your urges bud.
>>
>>3449350
I don't know man, he sounds like a really cool guy with good tastes in nubile girls.

4chan is probably not the right place to lecture people on morals.
>>
>>3449352
>>3449350
Remember this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byq9wwBL_EA

Little did they know, he was actually openly gay and not interested in kids at all.
>>
>>3440010
I want to see the dimensions of a 18mm f/0.63 prime
>>
>>3439941
>Manual focus
>Manual aperture
>1950's chinese image quality

Good job, moron!
>>
>>3440010
I love how they have to do presentations to defend their poorly thought out mount
I love how they have to badmouth other companies
I love how those slides the image is projected in the middle only
I love how after all this nonsense there's still no ultrafast sony lenses available
There's no going around the fact that e mount is too small to get good image quality in the corners with ultra fast lenses.
>>
>>3449598
E-mount has the sharpest lens in the world right now.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/

And as far as I'm concerned, Sigma and Leica started the fight, they should be able to take something in return.
>>
>>3449599
I love how that has nothing to do with what I posted!

ps. 1,8 isn't ultrafast.
>>
>>3449600
You expected Sony to not retaliate when Laica/Panasonic/Sigma officially attack them. That's a double standard.

>ps. 1,8 isn't ultrafast.
Still the sharpest lens in the world, and superior to other lens mounts.
>>
File: 1.jpg (77 KB, 600x399)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>3449598
In other news, Nikonfags run away with their tail between their legs when confronted with that fact that the new Noct lens can fit within E-mount.
The silver metal barrel that holds the last peice of glass is only 42mm in diameter.

You're going to need a new lens to prove E-mount is too small.
>>
>>3449335
Lmfao, it's still soft at f2.8

>>3449600
>1.8 isn't ultrafast

Show me a faster af 135mm or longer lens. Most "fast" lenses over 100mm are f2 or f2.8
>>
>>3449599
>learn to read
Sharpest lens in the word are some olympus pro lineup lenses. They're somewhere in 150 range. That article only mentions lenses they tested.
>>3449683
Reason is because you don't need f1 at those ranges. You should know that if you ever shot anything at all. You've such a narrow dof that nothing in it is ever in focus.
>>
>>3449684
>Sharpest lens in the word are some olympus pro lineup lenses
You wish they were. But just because someone tested a lens with many line pairs doesn't mean the lens did well in such a test.

You are just trying to deceive people.
>>
>>3449684
>Sharpest lens in the word are some olympus pro lineup lenses
oh god it's a fucking m4/3 fag
>>
File: .png (140 KB, 875x869)
140 KB
140 KB PNG
>>3449684
>>
File: .png (147 KB, 879x874)
147 KB
147 KB PNG
>>3449684
lol
>>
File: 223829_roz1.png (7 KB, 650x455)
7 KB
7 KB PNG
Yeah, I'm not jerking my cocks over test charts like you do. But that's the article mentioned:
https://www.lenstip.com/554.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_ED_17_mm_f_1.2_PRO_Image_resolution.html
>>
>>3449684
M43 has to be the sharpest glass in the world, their sensors are 4 times more demanding.

The lenses themselves are maybe 5% better, so the end result is the same as a shithouse lens on full frame.

>you don't need f1

Who said f1? And no, i shoot wide open on my 85 1.4 all the time, dof is plenty at the right focal distance.
>>
>>3449704
>i shoot wide open on my 85 1.4
>all the time
lol, stop lying to yourself it's sunday and you're shitposting on 4chan... you pathetic excuse for a gerfag
>>
>>3449699
The chart says the Olympus lens is failing hard at 50 line pairs.

So now you have difficulty convincing me that lens will do well in a 150 line pair test.
>>
File: 226792_roz.png (8 KB, 650x455)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
>>3449718
>Sony 85 mm f/1.8 FE
For comparisson... It's respectable review site. No necessary hype like with lens rentals.
>>
>>3449722
And yes, that 85mm lens is failing in the 50 line pair test as well. So what?

Are you suggesting the Olpympus lens is sharper than the 135mm, because you proven the olympus lens is sharper than the 85mm lens?
>>
>>3449725
All i'm saying is that you're a moron obsessing over charts and not even knowing what they mean. At the same time never shooting a thing.

It perfectly explains why you never see any sony photog showing their work here. You're all just incapable of doing anything but jerking your members over test charts...
>>
>>3449722
>It's respectable review site
I'm not so sure about this. The reviewer has misunderstood the MTF system completely.

He thinks a lens "can achieve 96lpmm", just because it managed to score 96% in a 50lpmm test.
>>
File: 1486424259588.jpg (43 KB, 339x435)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>3449727
>you're a moron obsessing over charts and not even knowing what they mean
But you're the one who said
>They're somewhere in 150 range
Without knowing what the fuck this actually means.
>>
>>3449273
>And he has a good point.

Sony lens vs. Fuji equiv:
50/1.8 vs. 35/1.4: $250 vs $430
28-70/3.5-5.6 vs. 18-55/2.8-4: $400 vs. $700
28/2 vs. 16/1.4: $450 vs. $750
50/2.8 macro vs. 35/2 (non-macro): $500 vs. $400
85/1.8 vs. 56/1.2: $600 vs. $750
35/2.8 vs. 23/2: $800 vs. $450
24-70/4 vs. 16-55/2.8: $899 vs. $899
90/2.8 macro vs. 60/2.4 macro: $1099 vs. $650
70-300/4.5-5.6 vs 55-200/3.5-4.8: $1200 vs. $700
70-200/4 vs 50-140/2.8: $1500 vs $1200
12-24/4 vs. 8-16/2.8: $1700 vs $1500

35/2.8 vs 27/2.8 (pancake category): $800 vs. $450

So score is 4 lenses where Sony is cheaper, 6 where Fuji is cheaper, and one tie. Obviously this doesn’t count lenses where one side doesn’t have anything vaguely equivalent to the other (and there are a LOT of other various features that differentiate the above. E.g., Sony’s 50/2.8 is a macro but Fuji’s 35/2 isn’t; a bunch of those Fuji lenses are weather sealed; I didn’t pay any attention at all to sharpness/resolution; etc).

And the bodies, X-T3 is $1400 vs. A7 III for $2000

So, let’s look at kits. My ideal set to cover all of my bases is a wide zoom, a normal zoom, a telezoom, a fast prime, a portrait lens, a pancake, and a macro.

X-T3 + 8-16 + 18-55 + 50-140 + 35/1.4 + 56 + 27 + 60: $6380 total
A7III + 12-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 + 50/1.8 + 85 + 35 + 90: $8848 total

Obviously, there are some heights that the Fuji just currently can't reach (e.g., there are f/2.8 zooms that don't have an f/2.0 crop equivalent), but whether or not those matter to you is personal to each individual photographer. But you can't just say "Crop is a false economy" and be done with it, because it makes you sound like an idiot.
>>
>>3449731
>posts anime girls
Yeah, this explains everything...
>>
>>3449733
>50/1.8 vs. 35/1.4: $250 vs $430
It's a good attempt, but you need F1,2 in this case.
F1,4 wouldn't be enough. So realistically speaking, the equivalent lens would be much more expensive than just 500 dollars.
>>
>>3449733
You made all those comparisons whilst completely ignoring the fact the fuji glass would need to be twice as good at resolving detail as the sony to be comparable.

And they're not, no one has a secret special perfect glass reserve.

You also chose a premium zeiss 35 2.8 when the samyang version massively outperforms the fuji equivalent, and is currently $240. Or, you could have used the crop sony 35 1.8 which is again cheaper than the fuji. How very disingenuous of you.

>fuji lenses are weather sealed

As are over half the sony lenses you listed
>>
>>3449733
>I didn’t pay any attention at all to sharpness/resolution; etc
Obviously this is an important thing to most people.
Look at your 85mm comparison:
>85/1.8 vs. 56/1.2: $600 vs. $750
Basically the 600 dollar lens blows your 750 dollar lens out of the waters>>3449335 by several stops of light.

This is important to many people.
>>
>>3449734
Well, I went easy on you because I actually found that lenstip website useful back when I was a newbie.

But he actually doesn't understand the MTF chart he is using. The general gist is there, but he is misinterpreting the results.
>>
>>3449744
>when I was a newbie
You spend days arguing completely useless charts on 4chan. Of lenses that you don't own. And you're posting anime girls... Dude, you've problems.

I'll tell you where there are problems with sharpness tests... They're useless. Outside, when you're shooting, you're encountering haze, fog, moisture and pollution, and it throws everything that you see in charts out of the window. Tests are done on extremely short ranges in studio environments. And you're having trouble even gasping what discussed 135mm lenses are used for.

It's a recently released Sony lens, so you shill it like it's next comming. Look at what you're doing and rather spend that time commenting on images, posting your own images, and doing some productive work on the site...
>>
>>3449736
I got as close as I could. Realistically, based on my own experience, I basically never shoot wide open at f/1.8 on my 50/1.8 because you can’t get anything usefully in focus that way anyway.

>>3449738
>ignoring sharpness
Assuming you can actually take a good picture, literally no one will give a shit. All of Fuji’s lenses and Sony’s lenses are sharp enough that they look perfectly fine unless *maybe* you compare them both on an identical test chart at 100%.

“Wow, it’s so sharp!” is praise that you only get when the photo you took us boring as shit.
>>
>>3449749
>It's a recently released Sony lens, so you shill it like it's next comming
Nah, I "shilled" for the Nikkor 105mm F1,4 as well back when it was hot.
You got the completely wrong target.

>useless charts
>sharpness tests... They're useless
So you say, after getting blown the fuck out by lensrental, and using a website that cannot even interpret the chart correctly.
>>
>>3449752
>FUJI LENSES ARE THE BEST

>mentions sharpness wrt sensor size

>SHARPNESS IS OVERRATED, IT'S NOT NEEDED, FUJI GOOD ENOUGH

Lmfao, fuji cucks are on another level.
>>
>>3449742
>Basically the 600 dollar lens blows your 750 dollar lens out of the waters
The comparison in that image is between the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8, not the regular Sony 85/1.8 that I used for the cost comparison. The Batis is sharper (which, again, no one should actually care about) but also significantly more expensive.

If your argument is that people who care more about having the shiniest high end gear than actually taking pictures should get full frame, then yeah, obviously, there’s not really any argument against that.
>>
>>3449762
>The comparison in that image is between the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8, not the regular Sony 85/1.8 that I used for the cost comparison.
The generic Sony lens is sharper than the Zeiss lens.

I would have granted you the point if the Zeiss lens was sharper than the cheap lens, but unfortunately it isn't.
>>
>>3449755
You’re talking to two different anons. I’m the one saying Fuji lenses are good enough. Another anon (or possibly just a straw man you created in your brain; I’m too lazy to read back through the thread) said they’re the best.

Fuji lenses are plenty good. You’re not going to get the same sharpness with a Fuji as with a full frame and lens of equivalent quality, but if you’re not conflating “sharp photo” for “good photo”, the difference isn’t really enough that anyone in the real world should care about it.

Some of history’s greatest photos were taken with lenses that we’d consider Coke bottles nowadays on old-school, slow, grainy, low-resolution film. The difference between full frame and APS-C sharpness is almost academic in comparison.
>>
>>3449764
Fair enough. Still doesn’t actually matter though! I’m guessing they’re both a lot sharper than the janky old Canon 85/1.8 with slightly sticky AF motor that I use and not a single person has ever commented that my photos with it weren’t sharp enough.
>>
File: bokeh ca.jpg (541 KB, 730x2111)
541 KB
541 KB JPG
>>3449771
I don't know about the Canon lens, but definitely a league above the Nikkor lens.

Basically a new generation that takes advantage of the short flange.
RF-mount and Z-mount will eventually get this type of lens.
>>
>>3449596
>Everyone wants the exact same looking image and lenses
>>
>>3439941
>Get wrecked, faggots.

Man, the Sony marketing department must be a fun workplace. You guys just get shitfaced and start drunkposting, or what?
>>
>>3439941
Guaranteed soft as slippery dippery dog doo and everyone will have to stop it down to 1.8 for passable shots. Don't waste your time with this one. Just go out and get any of the already existing decent 1.4 or 1.8
>>
>>3450693
There are new ones on the way as well>>>3449555
>>
>>3449769
>Well fuji lenses aren't as good as the competition, and they're super overpriced, but they're good enough for me...

So, it's terrible advice for anyone to buy into fuji, gotcha.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.