>Canon RF $1500>Sony FE $1400>Nikon Z $598How does Nikon keep on winning?
>>4329715Buy looking much worse
>>4329718*by
>>4329715The nikon is soft as shit low budget lens thats worse than their 35mm f1.8 at f1.8. The rendering is a blend of softness and modern sterility that’s just ugly. The sony and canon have no photographic flaws whatsoever and the canon doesnt even have focus breathing. The sony renders with leica-like character. Nikon lenses suck as usual
>everyone wants a 35mm f2.8 for the zf>nikon: but canon has a-*farts*
I want that rf 35 1.4 so bad, but because of socialism I have to pay an additional 1000 bucks over the amerifat pricing.
>>4329725I've got the RF 24-70 2.8 L and it's stupidly sharp. I reckon that prime is insanely good.
Looking forward to the rumored 35 1.2 S. It’s cool that there are more affordable fast primes in the lineup. Makes it easier for hobbyists to jump in with say a Z5 and have midrange lenses available. Before it was like “here is this cheap, perfect, but boring and slow 24-70, every other lens is $1000+ fuck you.”Anyway, don’t like it don’t buy it. It’s cool that there’s options.
>>4329715Optics are much worse
>>4329734The 35 1.4 G was not an amazing lens. And comparing it to a $2000 Sony GM is silly. There’s gotta be an allowance for the price point. Do I think it’s going to be an amazing lens? No. Is it a good enough lens for the price? Sure. Somebody will love it. If you know better you’ll save a couple hundred more and get the 1.8 S
>>4329727>i reckonokay cletus
>>4329734>Softer than the cheap old one>Probably less 3d pop and microcontrastdropped
>>4329715lmfao Sony really does use a baby mount
>>4329734nice photo, anon
>>4329715>L lens>GM lens>budget non-S lensGee, I wonder
>>4329727After seeing the 24-70 compared to the 24-105 f2.8 I am not so sold on it anymore.
>>4329842Sold on which?
>>4329848I guess you mean the 24-105 is better, but yea, it's also $1k more and is much larger.
>>4329715by selling 26mms
>>4329731Im just waiting for the Viltrox Pro (f1.4) and LAB (f1.2) lenses.
>>432971535mm is my favorite focal length but all of these lenses are too large for me.I think I may pick up either a Sigma 35mm f2 or a CV 35 f2 APO.
>Minolta $20let me guess, you need more?
Why would you not just get picrel boggles the mind. Gear addiction is a poison. All the primes you need have already been made. The last new prime lens worth buying was probably the Sigma 135 1.8.
>>4329715Since I only buy sub $100 Chinese lenses, I don't care.
>>4329968in this case yes its basically the fucking samein many other lenses case you can keep your soft “character” junk. it only looks that good for stop signs at sunset.
>>4329968That is a great choice, can we see some pics you've taken with yours?
>>4329968>a 135mm lens at f1.8>worth buying
>>4329968This is larger even without the adapter, worse, and it's out of production. If both lenses were free would you still choose this?
>>4329968lmao didnt see the price>shitty old crap, needs adapter, $635 used here, consistently $400 and up for shit thats probably been dropped from 6ft onto carpet>new one for z mount, $598 new>same price>same performancewow smart shopper ur so anti consoomer lmfao
>>4329715one company makes copy machines, one makes playstations, and the other is an optics company
>>4329972At what year do lenses become soft "character" junk? Is it 5 years ago? 10 years ago? You are a stooge of camera company marketing. >>4329976Literally true>>4329983Worse how exactly?
>>4329997Huh didn’t know Nikon made copy machines, neat.
>>4330010its not the ageevery f mount 35mm that isnt bazooka sized is junk. this new lens is the price of the old one plus an adapter and is slightly less junk. most dslr lenses are shit - leica is still in business for a reason.
>>4330019you are, frankly, a moron. you say words and they have no meaning, they are just vague emotions your brain has decided are correct
>>4330028Oh so you say this one is good? It only autofocuses on a no ibis blob = less dr than micro four thirds
>>4330041[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON DfCamera SoftwareUfraw & Imagemagick & ExiftoolImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution301 dpiVertical Resolution301 dpiExposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/8.0ISO Speed Rating100Focal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibrated
I hate lensfags, what makes one lens cost 500 and other one with almost identocal specs 3000?
>>4330071The fact that people can and will pay. Next?
>>4330071>fujitoddler thinks that if two lenses have the same field of view and maximum aperture they have "almost identical specs"
>>4330073>Sonytranny thinks debtmaxing his card on some overpriced piece of glass makes his photos better, even though he never takes any
>>4329976>>4330010>>a 135mm lens at f1.8could be good for astro
>>4330075Imagine being proud of not knowing anything about photography lmao
>>4330079Share yout photos faggot
>>4330080You made the claim first, post your spotless photis with your $150 chinkshit
