>Singlehandedly makes the E-Mount system irrelevant Snoysisters, what went wrong?
>>4379524Oh cool, worse versions of sony’s GM shit! Probably without WR or included lens holds as usualGood on canon for catering to poorfags in place of tamron (aka sony’s budget optics department, they have a majority stake)On the other hand doesnt tamron make canon’s non-l lenses, and doesnt this mean they have no intention of opening rf
>>4379524I want that 24, but not before it goes on sale.
>>4379544Any prices? Because I just picked up the RF 24mm f/1.8 for like $400 US. I can't imagine it's really worth a thousand dollars more for 2/3rd as tp of aperture, and an aperture ring. Unless I'm missing something.
>>4379524why are mirrorless lenses gigantic? These same lenses on an slr would be a quarter of the size
>>4379552Looks like thanks to the smaller and lighter bodies, the manufacturers are going a bit nuts with new designs. Pretty sure they're increasing the group/element count and getting fancy to achieve their "5 stops IS" or whatever.
>>4379551Similarly priced to the RF 35 1.4 from what I understand.
>>4379556Oh cool so 3-4x the cost or some shit. Yeah these don't look worth it unless you're using an R5C
>>4379560Are you new to cameras or something? Every manufacturer has a cheap entry level line and another expensive pro level line.
>>4379565Okay and? That's literally the conclusion I came to.
>>4379531Tamron is based, I used them for a lot of my Nikon cameras. Canon can suck a fart out of my ass for not allowing any 3rd party lenses on the FF mirrorless cameras.
>>4379554I think you're right about more elements and groups and bigger IS systems. Also moving the autofocus motors from the bodies into the lenses is part of the problem, but I also think consumer expectations have tended toward perfection. People want optically perfect, constant aperture lenses and it's making them massive and I hate both the size and sterility of mirrorless lenses
>>4379587All the RF primes I own (and my EF 100mm) are not rediculous but provide really good performance all around. It's just zooms I find to be a bit fucked. Of course, I'm not buying RF L lenses so OP's pic is still relevant if we're talking about bulky shit.My RF 24 f/1.8 can be shot handheld at 1/2 sec and it's nothing rediculous in terms of weight or size; could have gone the RF 28 f/2.8 pancake if I wanted to save weight and size but there goes the IS and a 4/3rds a stop of light.
>>4379593 There are some compact lenses available I'm sure. I'm just pointing out the trend. It really makes it difficult to get excited when the only reasonably sized lens are the Chinese manual focus stuff.
>>4379552The size and weight is what's keeping me from seriously considering stuff like the R5 and R5mkii. Why are they so huge and heavy? I'm looking into downsizing for something that packs a punch in a smaller and lighter package. Fucking tired of lugging heavy cameras around all day. Those huge and heavy lenses got me looking elsewhere.
>>4379597Pentax was my solution to this problem. Lots of compact lenses available and especially if you get one of their crop bodies, you can have a really nice, small setup (the KP is a bit smaller than a GH6)
>>4379595Understandable. I would actually quite enjoy an RF version of the EF 100mm f/2 because of how small it is, even if it doesn't have IS.
>>4379597Canon R50. Unironically. I give it shit for only having a half shutter, but it's basically MFT sized but with adult specs. Even when I end up buying an R6 I'll probably keep it for packing light.
Photography sucks
>>4379524>50mm f1.4>7 times the size of 50mm f1.4 lenses we had 50 years agocomputer designed 23 element lenses (with 3 plastic elements) was a mistake
>>4379616I'd rather use the EF 50mm 1,2 L. That lens is magic. Smaller and lighter too.
>>4379524>E-Mount system irrelevantGMs are lightweight and have better quality than this group of heavy bricks
>>4379602>my 1.6x crop is better than mft's 2x crop
>>4379690Correct.I'm sorry faggot, are you upset I didn't automactically suggest everyone buy an R5II?
>>4379524>FF E-mountNot that hard when you don't design the mount properly from the start. Canon and Nikon chads are easily mogging Snoy into oblivion right now.
>>4379928Market share says otherwisehttps://finance.yahoo.com/news/sony-doubles-mirrorless-camera-market-131600000.html#
