why dont you own the best zoom lens in the world anon?

Here we fuckin' go lads.

>>3048924
>latest OMD cameras have 80MP raws
feels great MFags

>>3048924

Wrong lens, OP.
>tried and true 70-200mm
>prime level sharpness
>constant f2.8
>11 aperture blades for creamy smooth bokeh
>OSS
>tough as hell build
>dust and moisture resistant
>smallest fullframe lens of its type

>>3048924
>uses fl equivalency
>doesn't use aperture equivalency

>boasts about being sharp across the tiniest sensor on the market

>$1500 for a lens on a dead system

Lol, byeeeeeee

File: 0224a.jpg (171KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 640x426px

>>3048947

Woops, forgot pic.

>>3048993
Lol, you don't even own it, you fuckhead. Your only experience is by reading about it on some blog or other

>>3048993
That is a sensational lens, when are anyone going to challenge sony? It seems the whole industry is letting them walk away with everything.

>>3048924
Already have a Tamon 70-200/2.8 which I love and got for cheap a year ago.

>>3048993
>huge
>ugly
>sony cameras
>doesnt even on the lens
um try again sweaty :)

>>3049005
>>3049009

>you don't own it
>therefore it doesn't matter it is the best zoom lens of its range ever made

lol wut

Even if he wanted to buy it he would have to get on a waitlist for a few months since demand is so high it is sold out everywhere.

>>3049009
>huge
Smallest lens of it's kind
>ugly
It produces objectively the best quality images of any 70-200
>sony
Why is this an issue to you, your camera probably is based around sony parts
>doesn't own lens
No, the waiting list is crazy long in my country, I can apparently expect it to arrive around august time

>>3048924

>80-300 equiv

Field of view.

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 mark ii so getting this would be a major downgrade.

And for travel (where MTF shines) I'd rather have my XT2 with say the 55-200 maybe the 12mm f2 and the 23mm f2.

File: zeiss_zm.png (122KB, 424x231px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 424x231px

>>3048924
zoom lenses kek

I shoot a Ricoh GR

File: 2617370448_bb5d5e3ac2_o.jpg (268KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 500x375px

>>3048947
>>3048993
Fun fact! The canon 70-200mm is the most widely rented lens ever, not because people like to take pictures with them, but the photographers actually get their photo taken while holding them for their websites, to make it seem like they know what they're doing.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	QuickTime 7.4.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2008:06:27 18:13:31
Image Width	500
Image Height	375

>>3049058
XT2 is not MFT you nog

>>3049107
>photographers actually get their photo taken while holding them for their websites,
yep that must be it
being the most versatile lens in the most commonly used system worldwide has nothing to do with it's rental popularity.
also rentals and leases are tax deductible expenses while purchasing outright is not
armatures own
pros rent

>>3048924
>equiv

dropped

>>3048924
I don't want to spend $1,400 on a lens. And MFT is best with primes anyways.

>>3049120
>rentals and leases are tax deductible expenses while purchasing outright is not

Really? - and in America I assume?

In my country at the most you'll have to write them off over several year.

>>3049118
No, but the lens for the op is for that system and if I was to ever think about using MTF it would be for travel, and if I were traveling I'd rather just take my XT2. You good sir are the nog.

>>3049120
In my country you can deduct taxes on purchases if they're for professional use, you just need an invoice issued to your company's VAT number.
And so happens in many other countries. Murrica is just a joke tax-wise.

>>3049147
>invoice issued to your company's VAT number.

That's just to get the VAT (sales tax) back.

On top of that you can also deduct most business expenses from your profits, so you pay less corporate tax (or income tax if you're a freelancer).

Finally, since your company is paying you didn't pay income taxes.

All-in-all it's usually about half price when you buy something as a business expense.
So: buy a $2k lens, deduct over 5 years, make it private property (values at $0) and then sell it for $1k and it didn't cost you a thing.

>>3049147
>>3049123
Canadian here but our tax laws are usually pretty close to the US. you can make a tax claim on purchases here which is for depreciation of the tool at 3% depreciation of original purchase price on new equipment, over 5 years. where rentals or leases you can deduct 90% of the cost of the rental.

When I worked in a rental house we had a few wedding photographers who rented the same gear 1 - 2 times a week and had been doing so for years. They could have easily bought the gear many times over for what they payed in rental fees but it was cheaper for them in the long run to not own.

the other plus for them was that they didn't have to worry about repairs due to ware and tear and got the newest bodies when they came out instead of having to constantly pay for upgrades

>>3049162
>3% depreciation of original purchase price on new equipment, over 5 years.

Why just 3%?
That's just 15% in total, so the remaining 85% stays on the balance sheets....forever?

Here it's 20% for 5 years (so 100% in total).
Except in some cases where you can write off the entire 100% in just one year.

>>3048924

sounds perfect for all the architectural interiors that i shoot

fuckwit

File: Canon_2520A004_Telephoto_EF_135mm_f_2_0L_1266943629000_112539.jpg (47KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x500px

Why people don't buy fast tele prime lenses instead of meme zoom lenses for lazy people that can't work their composition skills.

>sharper wide open
>MUH BOKEH
>relatively cheaper than a good zoom

>canon 135mm f2
>1k
>nikon old MF 105mm or 135mm
>less than 200 bucks

>>3048924
Picked up a used one on Amazon last week for 700. It's nice.

File: 2017-04-01_00.27.26.jpg (613KB, 1080x1544px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 1080x1544px

>>3049120

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Aviary for Android 4.8.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Unknown

>>3049177
based on when tools lasted forever like a mechanics wrenches. it has also never been updated for digital media.

>>3049225
Because framing is more important than sharpness or bokeh, and working events you can't miss a shot.

People that only use primes, or claim they are in any way superior are memelord faggots.

>>3048924
$1400 to cover a quarter of a sensor.
Makes this a $5600 equivalency lens.
Lol, no thanks, also, it's shit and looks like a 13 year olds toy.

File: schneider-apo-symmar-150-1.jpg (139KB, 618x618px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 618x618px

>>3049474
I only use primes
please show me a zoom lens that has 4x5 coverage

my medium and small format lenses are matched to what I own for the 4x5 so that if I get a shot I like on a walkabout I can go back and reshoot it properly.
I also set up a little a6000 when I am shooting studio just so I can get a rough idea of what the film shots will look like. yep I shoot sony for digishit

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

>>3049478
>I am a grand photographer!
>uses stock image

>>3049478
If you're only using your lenses to find and frame shots for later, you may as well use a bridge superzoom camera.

>>3049482
yup
you would probably also bitch had I used my phone to shoot my gear rather than setting up a soft box and reflectors to light it properly. and had I done that I would be a gearfag.
so yeah
>>3049488
true ... but I do use my 35 and 120 shots, I like to present my research material to support the larger prints and so on.
Colour is also an issue that is much easier in
35 and 120 as scanning is cheap and 4x5 scanning gets stupid expensive real fast.
I'm looking into colour wet printing but am having trouble getting the chemistry into Canada due to it's hazardous nature

>>3049107
The Canon 70-200 has that iconic white/cream color after all.

I'm betting Sony decided to go with the same color scheme for their 70-200 just to imitate Canon's.

>>3049515
Lenses that big can have problems with thermal expansion, the white minimises that.

>>3049517
Even if that is true, I find it peculiar that it is only Canon (with the exception of Sony, of course) who paints their 70-200s with that color.

>>3049478
Kek! People on /p/ own a lot of nice stuff.

>>3049521
>only 2/3 of pro manufacturers do this
Mebbe look at nikon as the odd one.

>Not Tamron 150-600mm G2 on A6500 or A7r II
pleb

>>3049515

>I'm betting Sony decided to go with the same color scheme for their 70-200 just to imitate Canon's.

You would be wrong. Minolta had white lenses since the 70s/80s. They are just following tradition.

Since Sony inherited the mount they have kept it up.

>>3049532

80s actually.

And Pentax makes white lenses too.

Only real camera company who doesn't is Nikon

>>3049515
The lenses are white so they reflect light and dont heat up too much in harsher conditions in outdoor usage.

>>3049225
>Why people don't buy fast tele prime lenses instead of meme zoom lenses

I have a 120-300 f/2.8
There is no faster 300mm, and if there were it would be huge.
I could have bought a 300 f/2.8 prime instead, but they are more expensive and I'd have to carry a second body (which is what all the big tele prime wielding professionals do).

But yeah, Olympus should sell a 150mm f/1.4 (300 f/2.8 equivalent) instead of this pathetic 80-300 f/5.6 equivalent.

>>3049570
>5.6 equivalent
Only in terms of percieved bokeh, not in terms of stops/speed, remember that. If you're not interested in bokeh, equivalent aperture means shit.

>>3049573
Yes in terms of speed as well, m43 have far worse low light noise, you need to compensate for that as well as the tiny sensor.

>>3049573
In every possible way, shooting that is like shooting with my crappy 70-300 f/4.5-f/5.6 on my full frame body.

...in fact, I my combo has a slight advantage at the short end.

Olyptards be mad.

>>3049578
If they made a full frame 70-300 4-5.6 that was metal, pentax-level weather sealed, instantaneous focus, and not hilariously soft, I would use it.
...But they don't. And like you said, this lens is just alike.

>>3049611
But the olympus has less apparent sharpness than anything on ff.

>>3049634
in theory, but in practice those 70-300 lenses are just all-around inconsistent garbage plagued by CAs and bad edge performance, and bad performance all over when zoomed in.

File: 80dm1ii.png (51KB, 1198x604px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1198x604px

>>3049574
> m43 have far worse low light noise
The new M1-II is pretty much on par with the current Canon APS-C ones.

>>3049463

lol'd

>>3049523

Big white lenses with red or orange rings are shot by gearfags who say hey look at me I have nice camera shit and have money I'm pro as fuck and want to be noticed for their gear not what they can accomplish with it

>tfw gerfags on pee actually believe this and not the real reason that white reflects heat and sunlight and keeps the temperature of the lens and its electronics down

>>3049996
$2000
might as well get a6500

>>3050060
The white paint is a double edge, it also radiates less so the heat picked up from convection and radiation is radiated much less resulting in a heat buildup.
Regular old black lenses with the optional neoprene jackets are the best way to go.

>>3050081

You mean those camo jackets used by naturefags? Do they do anything for preventing fogging in high humidity areas? I shoot caves from time to time and everything fogs up after about two hours.

>>3050060
>>tfw gerfags on pee actually believe this and not the real reason that white reflects heat and sunlight and keeps the temperature of the lens and its electronics down
>he believes marketing literature written in the late 80s

>>3050093
Weather sealing in the lens prevents fogging up, not the jacket. Also, let the whole thing cool down until you go further in and vice versa.
The jacket can prevent precipitation buildup on the outer surface, except the front element of course. Put on the lens cap, wait for the temp to even out (~20min) and go on.

>not knowing about the upcoming sigma 100-400

>>3049611
Fair enough.

Assuming it's about $500 it is a pretty nice lens.

>>3049996
>costs more than a full frame body
>noise equal to an asp-c half its price

You are right, that is hilariously bad.

>>3048990
>M4/3 is dead!
t. increasingly nervous fool frame fag for the 8492nd time this year.

>>3050201
Thankfully you never need to shoot above ISO 400 since you get 5 stops of in body stabilization, so you can shoot hand held at f/16 in a dark room at ISO 200.

>>3050234
That's great if your only subjects are stationary plastic butts.