Sony 70 -200 GM is best zoom DXO have ever tested

i you will never have it.

N E V E R
E
V
E
R

>sonycucks pay 2.5 grand for a shitty heavy unbalanced lens

keep believing in flawed e mount design


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m173_InWnaY

enlighten yourself sonycuck

>>3008926
I mean this is the same guy who goes on about how magnets effect optical quality.

>>3008930
he might be genuinely crazy but he's actually not wrong

>>3008930
he's right about the mount but he doesn't know much about optics. it's not really a great argument against the camera (in fact it does in principle allow for more lenses to be adapted) but with sony I wouldn't put it past them to put out a different mount one year and just break compatibility
the bigger problems are still the general problems of mirrorless: battery life, speed, lack of professional ergonomics (let's face it if you're buying this lens you don't give a shit if your camera body fits in your pocket). It's pretty cool that they're raising the bar for optics though

>>3008930
still doesn't invalidate his points on fony error-mount

>>3008913
Nice lens. Shame OP is still a faggot though and is still bad at taking any kinds of snapshits. Next time post it in general gear thread fag.

>>3008926
Lol, he's dumb as shit

I can't specifically talk about every lens, but the 24 70 2.8, 70 200 f4, 55 1.8, 28 f2 and 85 1.4 all have their rear element pretty damn close to the rear mount (and definitely inside the mirror box on a dslr).

He's literally looked at photos and concocted imaginary non existent "faults" and hasn't addressed the fact the short flange allows non retrofocal wide angle lens design, something that negatively affects every lens wider than 40mm on dslr.

>severely gimped cameras are better than ungimped cameras because of the laws of optical physics.

No you fat bald orphan.

Oh, let me grab my leica 90mm, pentax 135mm, sony minolta 400mm, canon 135mm, oh look at that, they all have empty voids before the rear element, despite them being designed by leica or for dslr.

Now let me grab my 35mm f2.8, huh look at that, the lens would fit completely inside the mirror box of a dslr, and outperforms canikon lenses weighing over 4 times as much.

That fat, unloved bumblefuck should sort his life out, he seems to spend the vast majority of his time being angry at sony for producing superior products.

Where's dat "sony 70 200 gm is a flop" memester at now?

Probably crying into their fuji.

>>3009398
Taken any photos lately, poopco?

>>3009400
Yeah, thanks.
Did a couple of environmental portraiture shoots for some artists I'm friends with. Went great.

>>3009401
Cool, lets see em

>>3009404
Nah, they were paid for shoots, i only share my personal stuff.

>>3009405
Sure thing pal

>>3008913
Let's see some photos that you have taken with this thing, then.

Seriously tho, no one gives a fuck. Get a life sonyloser.

"Sony is a bourgeois concept"
-Henri Cartįër Brėsson

File: index.jpg (6KB, 263x192px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 263x192px

>>3009372
>allows non retrofocal wide angle lens design, something that negatively affects every lens wider than 40mm on dslr.

Except the best 50mm are also retrofocal, as is the best 35mm (the Sigma "art").
So clearly modern retrofocal lenses are awesome.

>grab my 35mm f2.8

>2.8
lol

>>3009405
Good you protect you clients from the big bad internet

>>3009616
>1kg manual focus 55mm 1.4
>"best"

lol. The Sony 55mm f1.8 is sharper, has very fast, silent af and costs less than a quarter of the otus. It manages this by taking advantage of the space usually taken up by a mirror box. On top of that, it's only .1 behind the otus for transmission despite having half a stop slower design.

>best 35mm
The Sony 35mm f1.4 AND f2.8 are sharper

The "Best" of 100 years of uninterrupted SLR lens design and it's been beat by lenses a quarter of the weight within 5 years of Sony trying mirrorless.

>>3009639
> On top of that, it's only .1 behind the otus for transmission despite having half a stop slower design.
Hm, I think that bit is wrong. Its around 1/3 of a stop. Not much, but still...

0.1 of a stop is the 50mm f/1.4 ZA.

>>3009646
>learn2transmission

Otus, f1.4, t1.7
Sony, f1.8, t1.8

File: Untitaaled.png (990KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1280x720px

>>3009646
thats where youre wrong fujifag

>>3009667
Otus, f1.4, t1.5 actually.

t1.7 would be the 85mm Otus.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Plannar-T-STAR-50mm-F14-ZA-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-T-STAR-Otus-55mm-F14-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-II__1725_1035_1241_1009_1252_1035

>>3009695
I'm not on Fuji. Just correcting that mistake. Refer to linkage for proof.

I thought everyone knew this already?

>>3009616
>>3009639
you are both wrong about the best 35mm. the sony is shit though, if you still think sharpness is at all important compared to depth rendition then you need to git gud. the 35 and 50 art are both way better than the Sony because they have that dreamlike painting look especially when shot wide open - the sony sucks and yes, out of only the 14-15 lenses i've owned i've owned both of them. the 35L 1.4 II and the old zeiss 35 1.4 both beat the art, although to be honest the art is exceptionally good for the money.

>>3009703
>dxomark
using numbers to compare lenses is completely backward. sharpness is a meme, go look at the sharpness scores of the otus, terrible, yet the 50 otus looks probably one million times better than the 55 1.8 ZA which scores incredibly high yet looks flat and incredibly uninteresting to look at. fuck dxomark.

>>3009639
if you think the 1.8 ZA looks better than the otus then you are a fucking retard and are spending way too much time on that shitty website, it is deluding you. rent the otus and see. why are Sony shooters always retarded?

File: 70200FE.jpg (115KB, 700x455px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 700x455px

But srs though, Sony finally got the T-stop under control. Losing half a stop of light sucks.

>>3009712
>go look at the sharpness scores of the otus, terrible, yet the 50 otus looks probably one million times better than the 55 1.8 ZA which scores incredibly high

Because of different sensors.

When tested on the SAME SENSOR the Otus scores higher for sharpness.

Specifically:
1.8 ZA on A7r: 29
1.4 ZA on A7r: 31
Otus on D800E: 33

>>>3009703 (You)
>>dxomark
>using numbers to compare lenses is completely backward.
Nope, its as objective as possible.

Trying to rely on peoples feeling about how an image "pops" or how they were influenced by marketing and peers to think metal bodies = quality is the actual trash approach that leads to nothing.

"I feel the Otus makes uninteresting images that lack pop, pizazz and swing" - argument won, right?

Meanwhile DXOs sharpness actually DOES express how much you could crop, scale etc with good algorithms without actually seeing pixels and repeated information across pixels.

>>3009737
See >>3009731
So you agree the Otus is better?

>>3009731
those arent same sensors you dumb retard

>>3009750
>muh alternative facts

>>3009739
Its a little sharper and a little bit brighter, yup. But this ~5% small difference can't really make up for not having AF & ~30% higher weight in most use cases, so I generally will say the Sony are better.

Also, when lenses are basically within typical engineering margins of error but one costs at least twice as much I'd either way not recommend that one.

>>3009758
>people feelings don't matter, hard numbers are all that matter........unless the numbers don't agree with my feeling - BOOHOOOOHOOO Why you hurt my feelings DXOmark? NOT FAIR!!!!!

>>3009766
Wat?
It having / not having AF and a weight is a fact, too, and its not common at all that both are irrelevant in photography.

>>3009695
Holy shit, I really thought it was just a meme that Sonyfags are autistic, but this is making me a believer.

This is getting ridiculous, and here's a damn great example. Say one thing negative - hell, even make a simple correction - and you're immediately subject to autistic torrents of anti-Fuji rage, even when Fuji never had anything to do with the discussion at all.

It's at the point where Fuji to Sonyfags is like BBCs to /r9k/ or Jews to /pol/, you guys have a serious complex.

Guess what, Sonyshitters; it's not Fujifags who are talking shit to you, it's EVERYONE, and we all hate you because of shit like this.

>>3009766
>forgets the 55mm renders beautifully and uniquely.

Price, af and weight aside, I'd still take the sony.

>>3009794
>sony have no lenses
>sony have stupid hotshoe
>sony gimp their raws
>sony have no pro lenses
>sony fixes all of the above

Now that no one can come up with any anti sony stuff that's relevant, fuji are the new black sheep that need to be reminded of all the stupid shit to do with their cameras. Just a reminder, you have no raw software, in 2017.

I own a fuji, would i recommend one to a new photographer? Not in a million years.

>>3010002
>you have no raw software, in 2017.

That's total bullshit and you know it. Even Lightroom does a completely adequate job if you adjust your sharpening and NR settings.

But yeah, I don't EVER recommend Fuji to new photogs either. It's a niche system with a few strengths and many weaknesses and you really need to know yourself as a photographer to know if it's the right system for you. It's terrible for somebody who's just starting out and wants to shoot a little bit of everything, and who may not be well-versed in some of the intricacies of camera operation or processing.

I'm just really damn frustrated at being the indirect target of Sony users' constant namecalling and insults whenever Fuji comes up or Sony is criticized or questioned on anything.

>>3010002
i can. sony aps-c range still doesnt have a 16-50 with constant 2.8
and were talking here 2017
every other manufacturer has this
BUT SONY STILL DOES NOT

>>3010002
>2017
do you ever read your replies? i already told you this in numerous other threads that fooji has lightroom + iridient transformer now. idiot.

>>3010072


Sony e-mount doesn't, Sony alpha-mount does - albeit not from Sony (Sigma F2.8 16-50mm).

I agree though, I'd rather have a bright normal zoom instead of the Zeiss 16-70 F4, which is a nice lens, but sometimes a bigger aperture would be godsend.

>sony have no lenses

I'd say that one is actually true, the selection is quite limited, for example there's no decent macro.

File: sony-70-200-gm-f2.8-lens-review-5.jpg (177KB, 1024x743px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1024x743px

>overcompensation: the lens

Fuck it, I still want one.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.8 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Andy Luten
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	57 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:25 07:42:20
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Brightness	-3.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	57.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3010090
It blows my mind that Sony still has nothing wider than 28mm on FF E-mount. 24mm is bread and butter these days and an 18 or 20mm or something seems like a no-brainer since Sony is so popular with landscape and architectural etc. photographers. Make it compact and light, even if it means making it slow, and it'd be a perfect combo with an A7RII for those guys who like hiking up mountains with their gear too.

>>3010105

There are actually one or two zooms that god wider, but there are so many third party options I doubt it has been a priority.

There is even an unbelievable 10mm rectilinear lens for e-mount.

>>3010107
Ah yeah I meant to specify primes.

I wonder if Sony hasn't figured out how to make a wide prime that's better than the third party ones, or at least enough better to charge Sony prices for it.

>>3010107
the 10mm samyang isn't full frame though.

>>3010105
Imagine if sony made an F2.8 20mm prime for FE mount

I bet it owuld be small as fuck

>>3010107
Why do they need a native one? You've got a range from Zeiss MF, Zeis AF, the Samyang Gang, etc.

>>3010125

The Voigtlander is though.

>>3010072
If you want decent lenses or low light performance, go full frame, it's a pretty clear message from Sony and a wise one. crop sonys are for kit lenses, adapted lenses and holiday snaps.

>>3010074
>I need 3rd party software developed by a lone basement dweller to get reasonably sharp results.

Lol, great.

>>3010090
>no decent macro
>Sony 90mm is the sharpest macro DXO have tested and is freaking awesome in use

>>3010105
20mm being announced in february according to my local store (it will either be f2 or faster or f2.8/f3.5, with the other coming later, don't know which one is first)

>>3010144
Combination of AF, compact, quality and price that smaller production lines can't manage, and designed around the sony sensor setup, too many of the m mount options give bad colour shifts or are the wrong end of a grand.

>>3010165
>Sony 90mm is the sharpest macro DXO have tested and is freaking awesome in use


Sorry, I meant e-mount macro (what's the use of a 30mm macro...)

>>3010202

It isn't like the FF 50 and 90 macros wont work o. a crop body.

That is like complaining a crop Canon body sucks because it only has like a dozen natice crop lenses.

>>3010202
The sony 90mm works even better on crop thanks to only using the centre part of the glass.

Personally I currently use a sigma 50 2.8 on an mc-11, it's as fast as on native canon body and more accurate.

>>3009737
literal spastic

File: .png (194KB, 1212x1115px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1212x1115px

yea but canon wins

>>3010648
Lol, no, the canon resolves 45 out of a maximum 50mp, the sony resolves all 42mp of the a7rii.

Also, sony has 6 exclusive fe lenses in the top 14, canon have 3, and canon have been making eos mount lenses for 6 times as long as sony.

Unless canikon double their quality and slash their prices it's over.

>>3010804
have fun trying to rent a g lens, also i doubt the quality is anywhere near an L lens
also fuck focus by wire, that shit is garbage

>>3010820
>have fun trying to rent a g lens

Like this?

>https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sony-fe-70-200mm-f2.8-gm-oss

Why is it fun?

>i doubt the quality is anywhere near an L lens

You are right. It is vastly superior.

>also fuck focus by wire, that shit is garbage

It is direct coupled.

>>3010823
the shills are out in full force today
i have never once seen a pro photographer use anything other than canon or nikon
even then its canon 90% of the time
no one but video nerds and autists want to use a fucking sony

>>3010825
>not knowing why many pros are canikon.

Fucking noobs.

1. Eos and f mount have been around for over 30 years, full frame sony mirrorless has been around for just over 3 years, and had professional lenses for less than 1 year. A set of professional lenses will set you back around $5k - £15k and they will stay at a good performance level for around a decade. Unless you've gone pro within the last 12 months, or sony have been so convincing you're happy to take a big financial hit earlier than expected just to move over, you're gonna be on canikon.

2. People are creatures of habit and will argue over and stay loyal to one company for literally no reason. Sparkys froth at the mouth over what soldering iron brand they use and will never change because that's what feels right to them, whilst sony/minolta did have a small share of the market, it wasn't necessarily retained in their mirrorless offerings as they are completely different to any other camera on the market. If you play the piano, would you want to switch to a keytar?

3. Canon customer service; if anything goes wrong with pro canon gear, you can get it resolved within 48 hours no matter where in the world you are. This is why they're the preferred choice of 90% of media outlets, companies care more about efficiency and productivity than image quality.

Oh, and here's a bonus bit, canons technology inside their cameras is about 7 years behind sony in terms of performance. And they look and feel like fisher price toys.

Oh, and
>>3010823
This guy rekt you.

File: 1477662340028.png (287KB, 368x469px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 368x469px

>>3010825
>>3010820

>gets rekt
>resorts to name calling

sony a6300 + canon EF lenses is god tier

metabones so good

>>3008913
lens rental said it's shit though.

>>3010865

They also said they fucked up the testing.

>>3010825
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3t_Phob6Gs

canun is finished.
all the 14 year old will get their mum to buy a sony now.

>>3010865
They also showed results using a clearly broken body and admitted to it.

Anti-sony shills in full temper tantrum.

>>3010866
They didn't say that. They did say that they tested a number of the lens, 4 or 5 pieces to make sure of the results and they also posted the raw image. Where is the freely available DXO test chart again?
No test chart? This means there is no evidence of the scoring for DXO score and the result is nothing more than a fantasy number, that can be as big as you are willing to pay them.

>>3010870
Are you saying that Sony mirrorless bodies are not reliable enough to do simple charts tests?

>>3010915

>lensrental raw

Did you even look at it? It isn't even properly aligned.

>>3010940
All I saw was a shitty lens and two good ones, Canon and Nikon

dxo got any tests of large format lenses or are they only testing baby gear?

File: 1483950203215.gif (468KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

468KB, 500x282px

>>3008926
That guy is an idiot holy shit. He claims that the extra barrel on Sony 85mm 1.4 makes mirrorless cameras not as small as everyone else claims it to be yet it is the shortest when compared to Canon's and Nikon's 85mm.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=sony_zeiss_85_1p4_za&products=canon_85_1p2_ii&products=canon_85_1p8&products=nikon_85_1p4d&products=nikkor_85_1p4g

I won't even bother pulling data on body sizes.

He truly is a canikon user at suicide watch.

>>3008941
Except that it does.

>>3010954

One side of the Sony is sharper than both Canon and Nikon.

But since it is misaligned, the other and the middle are off.

>>3008930
hes not wrong. He's wrong elsewhere but he's not wrong there.

>>3011297
Shut up theo you fat bald cuck.
Why do you think lensrentals tested multiple copies, I've seen you mention it in a video and on here, but the article says nothing of the sort.

How much did sony hurt your feefees?

>>3011031
He's dumber than he is fat or bald, the sony 85mm has glass where a dslr mirror box would be. He's just upset he bought into foojee.

>>3011297
You think magnets, affect, optics?
Lol, no, you're almost as dumb as you are fat.

>>3011341

How would a,magnrt affect optics anyway?

Maybe a super strong magnrt fucking up electronics or ferrous parts to ruin alignment, but that is kind of a different issue.

>>3011342
Have you seen that fat bald fucks videos, he makes isi look enlightened.

>>3011342
Magnets affect the light path

>>3011852

I doubt any common magnet affects it to any appreciable degree.

>>3011853
Nah, magnets curve lightrays as much as a static charged plastic rod curves a stream of water.

Just get a magnet and look at the area around it, see how everything around the magnet looks warped? That's because magnets bend light rays.

>>3011863
Is this some bait or memeshit or just idiocy?

>>3011884
just the third don't worry

>>3011342
A magnetic field can affect the light propagation like different substances in optics. It will not refract it or bend it but it can change certain properties of the light depending the direction of the magnetic field. You do need extreme sensitivity and very strong magnetic fields but this is how magnetars are detected in astronomy.
Does the earths magnetic field affect light properties in photography? Certainly not. The phenomenon exists but not strong enough to be detected by a camera. Neat thing to know to wow the crowd at the pub, nothing more.

>>3011863
That is diffraction, same thing happens around every other solids edges. Perfectly visible with long lenses like 300 or 400mm

File: bestlensever.jpg (203KB, 720x544px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 720x544px

>>3010648
>Sony 70 -200 GM
>not fuji 55-140
sharpest lens on market, you're not even trying shitty sony shillers

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5DS R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:30 21:16:44
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	83.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	720
Image Height	544
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 2wHAzQz.jpg (60KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x449px

>>3011342
Theoretically magnets could warp the path of light in the same way that gravity can, such as in a black hole, but you'd be hard pressed to encounter any optical distortion from magnets on consumer lenses. Deep space telescopes like >>3011938 said, but not your 70-200.

>>3011992
It's sharper than any fuji prime, let alone zoom. And it's faster than that piece of poop.

>>3008913
Didn't nikon made a VR III version of the 70-200 2.8?

>>3011341
>getting baited this hard

>>3012021
Shutup fatty

File: 1484583641341.gif (4MB, 295x222px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 295x222px

>>3011992
>Compares APSC lens to FF

>>3011992
here comes the fujibaby

You people are spastic retards. You fucks could have the best lenses available and still produce mediocre photographs.

>>3012279
at least we are better than iphone babbies.

>>3012156
Fuji users have told us time after time that ff is a meme and crop is just as good. Are they not right?

>>3012286
fuji users dont understand background compression and distortion. That doesn't justify one as better or worse.

File: sffsdfsdfs.jpg (374KB, 1112x741px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1112x741px

Implying fuji does not have best lenses on market
you can live in your dream worlds canikosonyfags

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	Capture One 8 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:18 15:17:49
Image Created	2016:08:18 15:17:49
Exposure Time	1/140 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	56.00 mm
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3012316
No fuji lens is as sharp as the dirt cheap sigma dn range. Fuji pay dxo NOT to test their gear, make of this what you will.

>>3012316
The X-mount lenses? Some are quite okay in an absolute sense, but given their price tag, most are weak. They should cost a lot less.

No real chance against the good SonyZeissCanonNikonSigmas.


Okay, except those ~$300k TV zoom lenses. They're pretty impressive. Just nothing I could buy.

>>3012327

>No real chance against the good SonyZeissCanonNikonSigmas

Fuji lenses fucking shit on pretty much everything else on the market bar a few exceptional options.

You are assuming that because the system is APSC and not FF that the price of glass should reflect that, Fuji are not working on an APSC is inferior scale.

The Fuji 16mm (24mm equiv) is the best 24mm on the market. The 50–140mm is as good as the Canon 70–200 and better than the Nikon 70–200 V2 (have not tried the V3). The 56mm is better (sharper, better contrast) than both the best Canon and Nikon 85mm options.

All of those Fuji lenses are cheaper than the Canon and Nikon equivalent lenses.

>muh Sony/zeiss
>muh Sigma

Lol, fucking shitty meme lenses.

>hurrdurr canon and nikon and sony is better

instead of being a gear shill why dont you just ask literally everyone shooting Fuji, lens quality is probably the #1 reason why people are drawn too and stick with the system.

>>3012001

itsanoldmemebutitchecksout.jpg

>>3012351
Are you ignoring the fact the sigma dn lenses have better mtf performance on both the 16mp and 24mp crop sensors? And they are a third of the cost of fujis cheapest lens?

Fujis lenses are shit mate, hence why they dont let dxo test them

>>3012351
> The Fuji 16mm (24mm equiv) is the best 24mm on the market.
Its worse than a 24mm Sigma Art and probably also than the 24mm Canon/Nikon, as far as I could tell. Certainly worse than the 20mm Sigma.

> The 56mm is better (sharper, better contrast) than both the best Canon and Nikon 85mm options.
No chance against the Otus or Milvus for instance.

Probably also not against the 85mm L II.

>>3012355

>No chance against the Otus or Milvus for instance.

>Complains about Fuji price
>b but c can it b beat the O Otus or M Milvus? pfpphpfphfph

>>3012355
>Its worse than a 24mm Sigma Art and probably also than the 24mm Canon/Nikon, as far as I could tell. Certainly worse than the 20mm Sigma.

I purposely replied to this part second because it is even more idiotic than the other thing you said kek The fact that yu cant accept that the 16mm is BY FAR the best 24mm lens on the market only draws attention to your uncontrollable autism.

File: 25175018307ce6ca879c0af906b5dc69.jpg (77KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x300px

just sayin' ...

>>3012356
>Complains about Fuji price
>b but c can it b beat the O Otus or M Milvus? pfpphpfphfph
Just the clearest examples, not the only ones.

Pretty sure it also gets fully wrecked for resolving power by the <$200 E-mount Sigma 60mm, for example.

> The fact that yu cant accept that the 16mm is BY FAR the best 24mm lens on the market only draws attention to your uncontrollable autism.
I'm just mentioning a bunch of examples that look better.

But the 24mm Canon / Nikon are also included in that. Yea, the Fuji looks worse.

File: 3665017646.jpg (52KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x450px

>>3012357

lol whatever fuji fag get on my level

File: how-many-firetrucks-equal-potato-thumb.jpg (10KB, 303x232px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 303x232px

>>3012360

>compares a 16mm to a 60mm

lol ho lee fuk

>>3012362
> 16mm
What the hell are you on about?

We were talking about 85mm equivalents in that context.

>>3012361
what's that? Gaylord?

>>3012351
>The Fuji 16mm (24mm equiv) is the best 24mm on the market. The 50–140mm is as good as the Canon 70–200 and better than the Nikon 70–200 V2 (have not tried the V3). The 56mm is better (sharper, better contrast) than both the best Canon and Nikon 85mm options.

Prove it.

Show me side by side comparisons from a trusted review site.

>>3012356
The fuji doesn't come close to outresolving the old 16mp crop sensor, let alone the new 24mp sensor, whereas the loxia 21, batis 25 and sony 28 all manage over 85% of potential resolution on a 42mp ff sensor.

Not only is sony glass sharper, it does so on a less demanding sensor.

>>3012362
but if you must, the sigma dn 19mm still destroys the fuji for resolution.

>>3012357
14.5-45
What is that a micro four thirds lens?

>>3012376
Maybe in the center. Anywhere else it a poopoo.

File: 1.png (200KB, 1635x957px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1635x957px

>>3012368
Not that guy but here's a nice comparison of sharpness with fuji, canon, nikon 85mm eqv. lenses @f/2, and the fuji 35/2 @2.8 thrown in for a good measure. Canon seems quite bad in this company, yet working pros use this shit every day without panic attacks over stupid gearfaggotry.

>>3012426

>everything is stepped down

Lets try wide open.

And throw Sony in there too, aren't they supposed to be good?

>>3012387
some old c mount tv lens.

File: 1.png (132KB, 1204x969px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1204x969px

>>3012458
Well, there you go. Fuji is barely the sharpest, though none of this is remotely important or matter in a real world use.

>>3012469

Thats not the e-mount Sony lens, and the a900 is an ancient body.

>>3012469

Even Sonyggers admit the 56mm is the only halfway decent Fujilens.


What about the 16mm that guy was fellating earlier in the thread? The 70-200mm equivalent.

>>3012469
>8 year old Nikon body
>9 year old Sony body

I am glad the Fuji can beat decade old cameras, but why don't we compare it to something modern?

File: Untitled2.jpg (497KB, 2560x1410px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 2560x1410px

>>3012654
Lol, no

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:24 12:38:38
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1410

>>3012669
>>3012654
>>3012651

>gives proof the 56mm beats all the shitty Canon/Nikon/Sony lenses
>still finds something to complain about

lol why are sony users so autistic? It shows lens performance you morans.

>>3012815

dxo users like to think that lens performance depends on the body it's mounted to.

>>3012688
Once again you're showing a test of the fuji with apd that was created TO GIVE A NICE DREAMY BOKEH aka soft images. So salty sonygger.

>>3012817
Wouldn't trust dxo for a shit, personally.

File: 2.png (125KB, 1149x957px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1149x957px

LOL is sony even trying

File: 2.png (123KB, 1149x957px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1149x957px

>>3012838
Whoops lets make this even better

File: 3.png (187KB, 1738x957px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1738x957px

>>3012651
>>3012669
Doesn't matter. Increasing resolution will only show the blur factor more clearly.
>>3012654
I'm sure you can type a few words in google and find that out all by your self, big boy. I believe in you!

Sadly no data of the 23mm fujibros, yet at least.

>>3012842
>55mm that low
Lol. Fake charts.

>>3012840

Lol what the fuck the GM is a piece of fucking shit kek

>>3012840

Post Fuji 16mm

File: Untitled1.jpg (394KB, 2560x1410px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 2560x1410px

>>3012842
Those graphs are based on pixel pitch noob, being able to nearly resolve 42mp over a full frame is a lot better than nearly being able to resolve the centre portion of a 32mp ff sensor.

>>3012833
The apd filter is designed to only affect images when shot wide open, in reality you have a $1500 lens that doesn't get sharp at the edges until f8. None of fujis lenses are sharp at the edges until f4.

Here's more real world examples, as you can see columns 2 and 4 only need to be stopped down to f2 to be sharp at the edges, fuji needs f4 despite needing an image circle of less than half the area. And these tests were done on the undemanding 16 mp gen 1 fuji sensor, and the 42mp sony a7r, fuji should have walked away with it of they made a competitive product.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:26 10:53:18
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1410

>>3012325
Got anything to prove those claims? Oh right, of course not.

>>3012850
Nah you're just delusional.

>>3012867
Yeah, photozones mtf charts.

Lol get rekt #blazeit420

>>3012869
And they show not only do the sigma wreck fuji in the centre, but also at the edges AND using the sigma on a sensor with an aa filter against fuji without one.

It's a joke.

File: 4.png (1MB, 2482x576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2482x576px

>>3012869
>Fuji pay dxo NOT to test their gear
Conspiracies much? Oh right, you have turned your brain into a mush, should've guessed.

>>3012854
Here's a link. http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/fujinon/xf-16mm-f1.4-r-wr/review/

>>3012855
Sorry, but I take the measured results from imaging resource much more serious than some blogs pictures of a bookshelf. And in your opinion it's better to almost resolve the sensor than completely resolving the sensor? Or what ever the fuck. Which gives sharper images? It doesn't matter. Wide open corner resolution is the least important measure of a lens performance, because that does not matter in real world use. Who's the noob again? And why the fuck are you so hung up on that one specialty lens? Why don't you bitch about the 58/1.4 Nikkor then which is utter garbage by your standards? All this proves is that you don't actually take any pictures.

I can make stupid irrelevant screenshots of "real world subjects" as well, here you go faggot.

>>3012888
they also seem to wreck every other lens, so why moan about fuji?

>>3012895
Sony lenses wreck the sigmas. I just used the sigmas because they are literally the cheapest lenses on the market for any mount.

>why moan about fuji
They're the only fanbois that try and imply their product is superior, even when objective testing proves otherwise.

>>3012893
No fuji lens outresolves their 16mp sensor, let alone the 24mp one, the only lens that outresolves it's sensor on any current high mp sensor is the sony 90mm (on a7rii).

Also, look at ir's test shots, I've posted them before with sony/fuji comparisons and it was a clear cut win for sony at every focal length.

>>3012918

shill more? kek

everybody knows sony lenses are shit jason

>>3008926
This is how imagine everybody on /p/ looks irl

>>3012918
>sony 90mm
>dxo shows it resolves about 32mpix
>hurr outresolves 42mpix fo rxii
being this delusional
soon fuji will release 80mm f/2.8 sony faggots on suicide watch

File: 1410652542857.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

>>3013662
Are you mentally impaired? 2.8 for APS != 2.8 for FF and there's not even any point in comparing them since they're completely different products that don't and can't compete with each other. Not even focal length they cover is simialr. Typical fuji mong

File: DSCF8037.jpg (945KB, 1078x1612px) Image search: [Google]

945KB, 1078x1612px

>>3013677
calculating f stops on aps-c and fullframe hahaha
you fucking nitwit

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.7 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	83 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:08 17:14:47
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	6.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3013662
>open dxo lens
>list by sharpness
>2nd
>sony 90mm
>42 perceived megapixels on a 42mp sensor
>wewlad

You're still missing the fact no crop camera will outresolve a full frame one unless you drastically change the properties of glass.

>>3013697
>implying aperturehas a constant effect regardless of sensor size.

Lol, typical diginoob

>>3013711
>You're still missing the fact no crop camera will outresolve a full frame one unless you drastically change the properties of glass.

Lol wut.

File: y8UX6lG.jpg (880KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 1200x900px

>>3013721
Glass is the limiting factor, imagine a tiny 24mp sensor, with a tiny lens, any imperfection will be magnified, the lens won't outresolve the sensor by a large margin and you get a soft image.

And vice versa, a 24mp sensor the size of an a4 piece of paper and a foot wide lens, the photosites (pixels) will be much larger, giving a sharper image.

Now, I'm sure you're thinking "but the difference between crop and ff is hardly relevant", but the photosites on sonys 24mp ff sensor are 137% larger than the photosites on the 24mp crop sony sensor. As we learnt earlier, glass is the limiting factor to resolution, so unless fuji have made magic glass with optical properties more than twice as good as say zeiss, they will never, ever be competitive for image quality.

Pic related is the effect in action. As you can see the 645z destroys the d810 and 5ds for fine detail.

>>3014002
I assume that's a 100% crop. Yes, there's a difference, but who fucking cares. I understand there's other benefits of medium format over full frame, but seriously, I barely fucking matters.

>>3014024
>whole thread dedicated to discussing the sharpest zoom lens ever made
>fujicuck comes crying that sharpness no longer matters when they realised they use an objectively inferior system with no upgrade path. After trying to constantly derail the thread by saying fuji lenses are better.

You fucking sadboi.

>>3014002
Wait, is this true?
Why the fuck did i just drop 2 grand on a fuji based off your advice 4chan, i thought i just needed a sharper lens than my kit one to get the same quality as a d810.

Do i return the fuji and take the $100 restock fee hit?

>>3014062
yes, order a gfx50 instead.

>>3014002
>50 MP with AA filter
>36 MP blown up to 50 MP
>50 MP without AA filter

no shit the last one wins, even without any size advantage

>>3014078
The 50mp were scaled down, the nikon wasn't blown up.

You can compare the aa filterless 50mp 5ds r images in their 5ds r review, pro tip, it's almost identical to the 5ds and still massively flags behind the 645z for fine detail.

It shouldn't need to be spelt out to you this much bro, just use some logic, glass resolution is the limiting factor, the larger the pixels, the less it has to resolve, the closer to perfect it will be.

>>3014087
>glass resolution is the limiting factor

If we were hitting some physical limit to "glass resolution", tiny cellphone sensors wouldn't resolve past a megapixel or two. It mostly boils down to manufacturing precision.

Diffraction, however, is another question. At 50 MP on 35mm, it will affect the image even at innocuous apertures like f5.6.

>>3014062

>taking advice from 4chan

You deserve getting burned like that.

Fuji lens aren't sharp at all. However it will only really be an issue if you pixel peep.

Just keep it, but stop spending money on it. In 5 years or so when it is time to replace it, get something actually good.

>>3014062
We saved you $3k you ungrateful nigger.

>>3014091
Smartphones dont resolve more than a couple of mp bruh.

And diffraction won't become any more of an issue than it currently is, big mp! = must print massive. 99% of prints still won't be larger than a 10x7.

File: uhhh.jpg (123KB, 615x589px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 615x589px

>>3014097
>Smartphones dont resolve more than a couple of mp bruh.

>>3014097
No. Big MP means smaller photosites meaning lower dynamic range and losing detail quickly in the shadows when you start raising ISO, even at 400 ISO on modern cameras. The 5Ds R has the dynamic range of entry level cameras at 50MP FF.
Yes, you can print big but you can also print big from a 12 MP image because with the smart choice of paper the larger pixelation and the loss of small detail (compared to the large MP) will be diminished by the paper's texture.
Did you ever print a photo to anything else than your average supermarket brand photo paper?

>>3014101
>jpeg mode with shit tons of sharpening applied on a test pattern

Lol, anon, you don't understand how this works. :)

>>3014109
>textured paper
Lol.
Most of my prints are done on fuji crystal archive for the blacks, inkjet blacks are gross, occasionally use giclee on hahnemuhle if it's more of a graphic/illustrative piece.

And no, smaller photosites != less dr. The sony 42mp has more dr and colour depth than their 24mp, which has more dr and colour depth than their 12mp. And canon sensors are just bad.

16mp, to me, started to look like shit on anything wider than 16" due to pixellation.

File: uhhhhh.jpg (176KB, 614x883px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 614x883px

>>3014115
>jpeg mode with shit tons of sharpening applied on a test pattern

Here's one with HDR+ off and with the 7+ as well

A bit more than >a couple megapixels. But you already said that 99% of prints still won't be larger than a 10x7 so it wouldn't matter anyway

>>3014118
>>3014101
I bet the art galleries and the city archives are so excited about your charts prints.

>>3014118
Still jpeg modes you fucking clown

>>3014126
It's the only thing the sonyfag understands

>>3014134
You can shoot raw with the 7+ and pixel

>>3014115
>>>giclee
shiggy
That's "inkjet" for anyone not feeling a little insecure about charging art-gallery prices for zero-effort digipleb snapshits ready to frame from any source file in 5 minutes.

>>3014148
It's been known as giclee for a lot longer than it's been known as inkjet, sorry you're so new.