No wonder Sony did not bother...

Started Feb 12, 2020 | Discussions thread
sportyaccordy Forum Pro • Posts: 18,485
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Did they say that?

Of course, how long E-mount existed and what Sony ML market share compared to EOS R and Z mounts? No doubt.

Can you post a link?

On your logic. I could easily invest into Sigma fast portrait lenses if that is really important. But instead I invested into fast Voigtlander CV prime lenses as more important to me, and also they can take portrait photos.

My point is you asked why I'm discussing 1.2 glass if I don't use it. Again, probably for the same reasons you do


Sure don't play zero-sum game. We all hope they succeed.

Of course. You just hope Canon doesn't succeed as much or more than Sony

You can get Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 at $1100 while EF 24-70L/2.8 IS costs whopping $2300, more than double

Or I can adapt EF mount 2.8 zooms and get full functionality and almost full performance

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

That's a limitation of the camera, not the fact that they are adapted lenses.

For example right now I have an old Tamron 24-70 G1 for sale on Ebay. I'll be happy to get $400 for it............. but it's every bit as sharp as the Sony GM 2.8 standard

LOL, your expectation is very low. No way.

Easy layup... here you go (the G2 is actually softer than my G1 but both are easily within range or even BETTER than the GM)

And with the nice human hand sized grip the extra 100-150 or so grams are no big deal. My R with a 70-200 2.8 is more comfortable than my A7R2 was with lenses half as heavy.

Not my experience. My A9+vertical grip is more comfortable than my 1D III which has the same shape/size/weight as 1Dx II or D5.

What does your 1D have to do with my R? With no battery grip or grip extender the R is more comfortable than A7/A9 bodies.

How much for RF 24-70L IS? $2300, cheaper than Sony GM? While now you can get excellent Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 Art at $1100, less than half of Canon RF. But you don't own this RF zoom either, right? So don't understand why you're so excited

RF 24-105 is currently on sale for $1100 but has been as low as $900 and is every bit as good as the $1300 FE version. New 24-105 4-7.1 STM is $400 and is almost guaranteed to be better than the FE 28-70 and FE 24-70/4 at the same apertures/FLs. And again, EF glass works better on the R than native FE glass works on most Sony FE bodies. A9/A7R4 aren't the only bodies in Sony's lineup and given that they cost nearly double or more than the R it's stupid to compare them.

All my Sony lenses, Zeiss, Tamron and Voigtlander collected at this moment have excellent optical quality, world class in respective area.

I'm sure they are and it's very important you let the world know that

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear-

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EF 135mm F2.8 SF Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow