File: 2024-04-04 21_56_41-AF-S (...).png (96 KB, 1073x591)

96 KB PNG

>>4301302
>>holds up to everything <$6.5k used
you do realize it gets raped by the Nikon 500 f/5.6. the only thing it has going for it is that it is $600 cheaper. No one is going to care it is 90 grams lighter than the nikon. It is the exact same dimensions as the nikon.

>>4301309
The pf lens? It's quite a lot inferior to the new Sigma.

>>4301316
>that mtf chart
>inferior
stay butthurt over lenses you cant afford

File: koD8srs5L7guUKfUrpHwSj-97(...).jpg (140 KB, 970x600)

140 KB JPG

>>4301317
sorry bro, mft are bullshit.

first the pf

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	0
Image Height	0
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Light Source	Unknown

>L mount gets another soft lens
Even the leica brand sl lenses are softer than a sony gm

When do you start calling it “character”?

File: CARRAVAGINOT_001.png (504 KB, 555x555)

504 KB PNG

get ready to get knife raped, zoomer.

File: pkJHXSBV6tiV4CSo39L3tg-970-80.png (76 KB, 970x546)

76 KB PNG

>>4301317
>>4301319
behold

>nooo mtf curves are fake a guy on a forum made this chart in his basement and this chart i drew for my mom
Fuck off you brazilian fuck

>>4301323
The pf is softer. :^)

this is AMAZING

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=745&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1684&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

because you found 2 charts from different testers and different bodies labeling y as “sharpness points”? boomers pointing cameras at charts for imatest do not beat manufacturer MTFs checked with lasers

>>4301326
It's literally happening lasercuck

Nah. Fail shill.

>>4301328
look at the link, idiot. everyone know of the legendary is ii, in 600mm. few realize there is a 500mm. stopped down to 5.6 it is matching the Sigma. Just look. 50mp vs 50mp.

Anyway, because the Sigma is so mich sharper than crap like the pf, nobody will biy those stupid used tele lenses. at $6.5k there is only a SLIGHT advantage, and you have a lens twice as heavy.

he's selling his shit nikon gear. smart kid

The Nikon is sharper. Cope.
>>4301309

>>4301335
he is trying to say the mft proves the pf is sharper than sigma male. but he is wrong, on real cameras, and with test charts and test subjects the pf is raped by the sigma male.

But, go ahead and don't believe me, nobody is buying pf or any other of the sube $6.5k lenses, except this sigma.

exceptions are like zoooooms for video, and other activities which scotus says is illegal now, and can get married too.

>>4301340
*legal

>>4301338
>Boomers performing a short range field curvature test (i assume) changes the MTF curve
Yes, if you only shoot an imatest chart and measure "sharpness" on a random scale that either goes to 2000 or 4000 depending on your mood

g9ii tier shilling for g9ii tier garbage

Torn between the 500 PF and the 180-600 Z. But I don’t have time to go birding so I don’t have to make the choice yet. I can always use my 70-200 and 2X tc to get most of the way there.

>>4301351
You should buy a pf. Because you should lose money because you are too retarded to even look at a test chart and see what eyes can see. Biy 3 of them, maybe you can make an arrohead out of the front glass, then finally it will be sharp.

>>4301302
Would be neat but Sony's 3rd party rules gimp it hard
>no TC support
>limited to 15fps

>>4301302
I like what Sigma is doing. I love their disruptive lenses. The 50 1.2 is another such lens.

>>4301373
It is funny how much shit Canon gets for locking down their mount while Sony does crap like that.

>>4301368
>test chart
Aka short distance field curvature test

Chartfags can fuck up. Manufacturer mtfs are objective. And most importantly its a sigma lens that doesnt attach to a single worthwhile camera body. Not one.

>>4301375
Their 50 1.2 renders like fucking shit. I’d rather use a “soft” zeiss from the 80s for a portrait lens. Flattering > flat.

>>4301397
Pee is obsessed with third party testers because the skewed results alleviate their buyers remorse. All of them except dxo of course because dxo is actually right.
>third party idiocy:
>the z6 and z7 and r6 and r5 have the same high iso noise - kasson (wrong)
>full frame has <13 stops of dr and mft = apsc - claff (wrong)
>mtf curve at infinity? no, flat chart at near mfd. thats how you test a lens. - carnathan (wrong)
>wow lookee fuji is soft and has no chroma noise this must be their own fault - dpreview (wrong)

>>4301302
>500mm lens
>1/30 readout tops, no matter the shutter speed
>no stabilization
>handheld
This is a good lens, but Sigma does not have a camera compatible with it, at all.

>>4301397
>Manufacturer mtfs are objective
that's just delusional, manufacturer mtfs can just be ignored, only 3rd party lines/height tests really matter

>>4301406
Its L and FE mount only so there is no one single camera worth using it on, except for a nikon with that janky ETZ21 adapter, which may not even work with this lens.

Maybe the leica SL3, but sensor and video wise it's just the A7RVI with a bigger grip. Same slow shooting jello e-shutter shit as always. And this is a "sports" lens.
>whaddabut muh a7iv!?
The one that only reaches 10fps if you shoot 12 bit compressed raws?
>PANASONIC BODIES?
Worse AF than a Z6I in a canon sized body with sony tier ergos and colors? Maybe if you're a video codec fetishist who only publishes on youtube, like every other panasonic user.

This lens, as is, is worthless until they at least get a fuji X adapted one out. Z and RF are mandatory or sigma dies.

>>4301409
Manufacturer MTFs ARE objective. It's mtf wide open at infinity. Third party tests are inherently dysfunctional in a way that is clear to anyone who knows how lenses work and TO ANYONE WHO HAS USED A CAMERA

I have never, ever had the results of lines/height (or the superior LINE PAIRS PER MM) reflected in real use of real lenses BECAUSE I DO NOT SHOOT FLAT HIGH CONTRAST TARGETS AT BASEMENT DISTANCES. When I was new I would buy lenses based on this lines/ph "sharpness" charts and NOT ONE SINGLE FUCKING TIME DID THOSE CHARTS REFLECT THE LENS SHARPNESS IN REAL USE. Then I started buying on sample photos instead and surprise was more satisfied. Because these charts usually lie.

Now listen up, you fucking retarded gearfags
LINES/PHEIGHT IS A PURPOSEFULLY CONFOUNDING METRIC, ALWAYS CONVERT TO LINE PAIRS PER MM.
ALWAYS NOTE SENSOR AREA, PIXEL PITCH AND PIXEL APERTURE SIZE
ALWAYS NOTE FOCUS DISTANCE, IF FOCUS DISTANCE IS NOT STATED IGNORE THE TEST.
IMATEST RESULTS WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING FIELD CURVATURE DATA CAN BE SAFELY IGNORED.
IMATEST CHARTS THAT DO NOT NOTE CAMERA MODEL DATA AND PROVIDE A RAW FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS CAN BE IGNORED AS PURPOSEFUL FAKES
NO RAW = NO TEST!

>>4301410
>there is no one single camera worth using it on
Well of course there are, Sony and Panasonic. I doubt anyone will attach it to Leica or A1/A9 though. You might make a good point when Nikon has a 60MP body to attach their lenses to, but even then, it's not the only system available.
>Manufacturer MTFs ARE objective. It's mtf wide open at infinity.
Manufacturer MTF are emulated at worst and monochromatic at best. 30 lpmm is laughable. Again, you can just ignore them, they are not important or relevant. Most importantly you cannot trust them.

>>4301410
>Same slow shooting jello e-shutter shit as always
You might have missed how Sony is also the only system with global shutter atm.

>>4301410
Superb point. This retard is also clearly comparing tests from two different camera bodies. lp/ph and l/ph are used by disingenuous internet measurebators to hide these discrepancies while screwing with the apparent results of a matchup.

+1 seconding for never getting what photo mag tier shit promised with their charts.
I bought 3 lenses based on lp/ph bar charts before realizing it was bullshit and seeing people with "worse" lenses having MUCH sharper corners than the zinefags promised, for my lenses or theirs. Turns out corners sharpen up at infinity because DOF is almost never a flat plane and sharpness tests put a flat chart through a zone of sharp focus that's usually shaped somewhat like a parabola or flat-ish but slanted.

>>4301413
>>4301412
It doesn't matter if sony has the a1 and a9iii, because you have to pay medium format prices to outdo a canon body by 1% and even then it still suffers from baby mount vignetting, star eating, cooked raws, snoy colors, and snoy "ergonomics". Also lmao @ sony global shutter having the dynamic range of micro four thirds.
Then panasonic is exclusively youtuber garbage, for people who want to play filmmaker with vfx but can't afford a sony cineline. Otherwise those cameras are actually awful, like buying a worse nikon z5.

Will sigma ever put their mediocre budget lenses on other mounts? No, probably not, L mount most likely has them backroom-dealed into not betraying L mount.

>you can not trust manufacturer MTFs
Sure, some polish autist shooting a test chart not even providing raws is better than optical technicians laser-measuring a lens on the bench.

Remind me again why gearfags "trust" reviews that do not even provide their raws like opticallimits, lenstip, whateverphotographydigitalreviewzinesite? Even dpreview provides the raws from their tests.

The only third party reviewers worth trusting are dxomark and lensrentals

>>4301415
>baby mount vignetting
Very relevant in a thread where we seriously consider F-mount lens as a contender.

>>4301415
And yeah, you really should not trust charts, >>4301410 is correct about choosing based on images.

>>4301415
>Will sigma ever put their mediocre budget lenses on other mounts?
They do in a way, olympus has just dropped their second tele zoom, rebranded as zuiko for micro four thirds.

>>4301416
The F mount 500pf is a $1500 budget birder, not the "contender", its for people that cant afford/lift the 180-600 but still want a sharp lens.
Z mount's competitors to this are the 400mm f4.5, Z mount TC, and 600mm f6.3. Might as well include the 100-400 because 400 to 500 is a slight crop.

The Sigma can NOT use TCs on any worthwhile stills body - you need to buy an a1 or an a9iii to outdo a cheap ass z8 and then you lose TCs. So this is theoretically a wildlife filming lens for people who already own panasonic bodies. Unlikely because the R5s and Z8s video specs are overly sufficient. Sigma bodies are worthless so no one is using that shit. No one is selling their canons either because this lens is only "as good" as an EF telephoto prime that works natively on every canon ever made.

The real market is going to be snoy users who cant afford real lenses trying to size/weight cope with their nonexistent ergonomics that were originally designed assuming f4 standard zooms were the largest lenses for sony.

>>4301422
>Sigma bodies are worthless so no one is using that shit
It's really sad, I want them to be viable, but holy shit. Especially anything telephoto.
>The real market is going to be snoy users who cant afford real lenses trying to size/weight cope
Will they really buy it over 100-400 GM?

>>4301302
>that looks great
lmfao are you taking pics or do you just wanna look at the lens? ah what am i even asking a gearfag for

>>4301412
Ahahahaha let me get this right

Your master plan to btfo nikon is to buy a $6000 snoy that shoots 120fps in af-c
And put a sigma tele prime on it
That limits it to 15fps in af-c
And removes your ability to use teleconverters

Your master plan to btfo nikon is to spend $9000 on a 15fps 35mm camera that cant use teleconverters and has the dynamic range and just a little more reach vs a $1350 lumix g9ii+ $2000 lumix 200mm f2.8

The absolute state of snoys. NikonGODs and CanonCHADs, please continue taking photos, this guy is just a clown.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (56 KB, 1280x720)

56 KB JPG

>>4301430
Sounds like a bunch of faggotry when you could just buy this bad boy. It's not even big, japanese women can sling it around while hiking up mount fuji.

All the size/weight autism around cameras is baffling. I carried an SKS on 5 mile hikes when I was 12. 8.5lbs, meter long.

>>4301427
The images are what looks great.

>>4301430
So the L mount is what the S5 has? while mirrorless, it has an honest sensor, tempting option.

>>4301481
just buy a z6ii and an f mount 500 pf

cheaper, and better at everything except video codec autism.

>>4301481
Yeah S5ii is probably the only camera where this lens makes sense

>>4301484
the s5 i has the nicest sensor in this generation, thanks to no pdaf onchip.

>>4301430
>That limits it to 15fps in af-c

1Diin, 8.2mp, 8.5fps.

>>4301520
Pdaf changing anything is a boomer myth like ccds having more accurate colors because of strong cfas

As in it has been brutally debunked with hard data, and boomers are just blind and prone to hallucinations

>>4301397
>Their 50 1.2 renders like fucking shit.
>t.bought first party fast fifty and is now having regrets.

>>4301529
Sigma lenses are not well liked for their rendering outside of the world where test chart snapshits outnumber real photos

Actual pros use objectively “soft” lenses before even touching that crap

>>4301531
>Actual pros use objectively “soft” lenses
ok boomer. maybe if you werent reliant on social security you could buy new lenses

>>4301540
Yeah but they actually do

>>4301540
>>4301546
They do!

Sharp doesn't look good except on photos of pine trees and grass. Sorry kiddos.

File: usa-shaun-white-2006-wint(...).jpg (191 KB, 680x900)

191 KB JPG

>>4301527
photo

>>4301528
It doesn't usually show up, but the sensor has to have baked in photoshop to fix the problem pixels. At very high isos it shows up, whenever something that matters is right under one.

I like my 150-400/4.5 PRO with built in 1.25 TC on my OM-1 more. 300-1000 equivalent range, sync IS, and it feels like air. FF can't compete for telephoto.

>>4301571
>no photos
Shocking
>equivalent
False equivalent, better known as cope

>>4301576
It's almost the same weight but a zoom with sync IS and a TC built in. It's insane how mogged it is by a fucking mft setup.

>>4301571
>FF cant compete but only if you’re weak
Z 180-600 and TCs.

File: 1b406f6fe44d4b78807d02d8e(...).jpg (204 KB, 1916x830)

204 KB JPG

>>4301571
>FF can't compete for telephoto
it is trash

>>4301588
That's $8000 of character and sovl you troglodyte. vgh, foolframers...

Mmmm, delicious jealousy

>>4301588
Is this actually bad? I have no idea how to read mtf charts but this lens produces great results from what I've seen. What is an mtf chart even communicating?

>>4301601
barely anything relevant
It's how shit photographers cope with their shit skills

File: 122247.png (200 KB, 1427x754)

200 KB PNG

>>4301601

File: mtf.jpg (163 KB, 1000x789)

163 KB JPG

>>4301601
you want the lines to be as close to the top as possible. the lower they are, the blurrier the image is. the lp/mm numbers are the resolution. compare those charts with >>4301309 or pic related for nikons 800mm. there is a significant difference of 10/30lp/mm and 20/60lp/mm in the graphs, but this is because the MFT sensor is a fraction of the size of a full frame, and due to how tiny the photo sites are, they require higher resolution lenses to give an equivalently sharp image. the take away is that 150-400 isnt really that sharp, and looks even worse once you use its built in teleconverter, as they dont provide mtf charts of that. and whatever anon is shilling it might as well just buy a bridge camera like a p1000 as the ability to zoom in no matter how blurry the image is all he cares about.

>>4301634
if you're having to post ken rockwell quotes you must really be butthurt as there arent any facts on your side. which is also ironic because ken rockwell posts mtf charts in all of his "reviews"

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 23.5 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1240
Image Height	978
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:02:10 08:41:01
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	789

>>4301601
Yes, it's actually bad. An MTF chart basically shows you how well defined tiny black lines are wide open, or in the case of precision measurements, something projected through the lens. Some people also generate another chart with the lens stopped down. Tangential/saggital lines communicate astigmatism, or more blur up and down than side to side. Depending on the lp/mm the measurement is at and tangential/saggital you can look at the chart and imagine how details of a certain size would look, and think "this lens will have most things well defined, but won't show a models pores well"

Anyways, this olympus lens costs EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS and is meant for taking highly detailed ID photos of birds, so it's a rip off for a 300-800m f9. If you put a 1.4x TC on a nikkor 180-600 f5.6-6.3, you'd get something about like a 250-840mm f7.8-8.8 that would be about as sharp, to a human eye, as this olympus lens, and work on a camera with three more stops of low ISOs and 45mp for oversampling (optimizes detail/noise) or cropping (shows more noise but tighter compositions).

If you activated the $8000 olympus lense's built in TC it would get even blurrier, about as blurry as the nikon zoom lens with a 2x TC (360-1200 f11.2-12.6)

>>4301602
EIGHT THOUSAND FUCKING DOLLARS.
>inb4 u poor? i waste money so im rich
Yeah congrats on carrying a balance on your credit card.

>>4301634
Ken rockwell writes a tldr post about himself
On the other hand he literally seethes and has a meltdown over the nikon 45mm f2.8 pancake. No sane person would do that. It's nikon's only pancake, and is only $350, and it's meant to go on film cameras first and foremost, so sharpness issues are borderline invisible.

>>4301601
you see "great" results form mft people because most serious mft users employ an editing pipeline that's a lot of time and work

first they shoot their 120fps raws
then they cull those raws that were made at 120fps by zooming in to check sharpness and then zooming out to check composition and going back and forth forever
then the ones that make it are first ran through topaz denoise AI and sharpen AI
and then they are edited to creative taste in a conventional raw processor.

the detail looks a bit uncanny and greasy after this so the images are typically exported much smaller than full size for your pleasure.

if you applied this amount of effort to shooting FF you'd end up with 3m wide prints and it would look a little weird even though you'd be starting with more sharpness and less noise (unless you cropped and cranked the ISO)

>>4301684
>An MTF chart basically shows you how well defined tiny black lines are wide open
except you cannot compare charts across brands

>>4301690
Correct with regards to typical lens review lp/mm and lw/ph charts, but not the own you think it is - "better" charts for m43 lenses represent softer photos than "worse" charts for FF in that case.

MTF charts done on a bench don't necessarily involve camera bodies so it depends on where you got the chart - this should be disclosed if you seriously want to compare lenses to determine which system will get you the look you want. Or you can just look at RAW samples. Not AI raped samples, because maybe you have better things to do than wait 15 minutes per raw.

>>4301684
I don't give a fuck about the price
MTF charts are barely relevant to photography
Cope, benchracer

>>4301702
>I don't give a fuck about the price
Wow. I am so impressed by your dedication to carrying a balance on your amazon prime visa. You are so rich. I wish I was as successful as you and could carry a balance on a credit card. Minimum payment life, amirite gigathad?
>MTF charts are barely relevant to photography
I agree. Lens sharpness does not matter. You can add sharpness in post and it looks amazing. Paying $8000 for a soft tele zoom to put on a body that has 4x more noise and 2-3 fewer stops of dynamic range is gigabased because it weighs one poundless (one pound is a big deal, unlike $8000, because my withered arms do not offer a payment plan)

>>4301704
>dismiss MTF charts entirely
>BUT THIS ONE PARTICULAR LENS IS EXPENSIVE
I do not give a fuck
Your charts ain't worth shit

>>4301705
>I refuse to acknowledge objective information
BASED!
>I do not give a fuck about price
Oh my god you are the coolest person on earth. I usually pay my bills but you opened my eyes. I'm buying a hasselblad h6d TODAY and leaving all those made up monopoly money charges on a loan. Not my problem.

>>4301707
It's absolutely irrelevant information, child.

>>4301708
>it's irrelevant
I know, objective measurements of lens quality are irrelevant because you can just turn sharpness up in lightroom.

>>4301709
all that objective information yet you can't take a photo worth a damn
You must have brain damage

>>4301712
>tries to brag about his crappy zoom lens, "fff-f-f-full frame cant compete"
>turns out it's worse in every way just smaller, kind of like a nikon p9000
>gets mad, goes full ken rockwell, cries nophoto, but has no photos of his own
game set match

-sent from my xiaomi

>>4301715
>tries to brag about his crappy zoom lens, "fff-f-f-full frame cant compete"
Miss
>turns out it's worse in every way just smaller, kind of like a nikon p9000
I don't ive a fuck about that lens you obsess over
>gets mad, goes full ken rockwell, cries nophoto, but has no photos of his own
stop projecting, this whole time the only thing I said was that MTF charts are worthless, repeatedly

>>4301716
>objective measurements of lens quality are worthless
whatever makes you sleep at night cheif

>>4301687
Based MFT users putting in the time and effort for their craft. Quality > quantity chads
>reee if I'll never put more than 2 minutes into each of my snapshits!!!
If anyone who posts in threads like this took a good photo once a year it'd be a miracle. Processing time is immaterial.

File: L1000809.jpg (141 KB, 2048x1367)

141 KB JPG

>>4301734
>ken rockwells of the world: i spent 9001 hours in topaz AI, that means my photos are good im just like incel adams -some retard whose "work" might make it to a wikipedia ID image maybe
>garry winoGODS of the world: *presses button, spends 2 minutes in lightroom* k done. a gallery show? yes please
photography will never recover

decisive moments >>>>> digital manipulations

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1367

>>4301716
>MTF charts are worthless
>which is why every manufacturer uses them as their performance benchmark in their tech specs
>actually yes i do know more than every camera company because i'm some mft poor who posts about lenses he doesnt own
i actually own a 500pf >>4299108 , lets see your 150-400 anon

>>4301737
based and true

>>4301740
mtfs are for consoomers of japanese junk who have to worry about buying bad lenses. leica men dont look at them because every leica lens is excellent.

File: 2024-04-06 13_42_08-NIKKO(...).png (170 KB, 1119x1033)

170 KB PNG

>>4301742
>every leica lens is excellent.
lol no. pic related is leica's $13,000 50mm f/0.95. it is fucking trash compared to nikons 58mm f/0.95 which is $5,000 les. the MTFs only start becoming comparable when the leica is stopped down more than 3 stops to f/2.8

>>4301750
>more than 3 stops to f/2.8
more than 4 stops to f/4. because i always fucking forget leica does 5/10/20/40 lp/mm because their lenses are that horrible

>>4301750
You just dont appreciate the character. It has depth rendering and the leica glow.

This is why leica users make it to the MoMA and you’re still trying to make the dpreview sample gallery

>>4301740
>It has to matter
>Because the marketing team of the company attached the numbers to the advert
listen to yourself

>>4301771
If they lied someone would be able to call them out. Then comes the lawsuit. They have to tell the truth. Lensrentals replicates manufacturer tests every so often. Basically they are telling the truth, but the test copy is cherry picked to be near the top of the range.

>>4301771
>its the SYSTEM man you’re listening to the MAN man i dont trust suits MAAAAAN
Listen to yourself.

>>4301776
yes yes, very cool
it still doesn't matter

>>4301778
It does when you pay $8000 for a soft 300-800 f9 and say “fool frame cant compete”

Or pay 13k for >>4301750 china tier optics. Now say you don’t care because you’re not poor so i can congratulate you on having a credit card, living with your mom, and being dumb.

>>4301779
m8, that obsession isn't healthy
nobody mentioned that lens but you

>>4301780
cooe

>5 minutes for the shittiest comeback in history
>so mad he can't even type a single word correctly

>so mad he's counting minutes between replies and hyper-analyzing typos
it seems whether its panasonic, sigma, or olympus, when someone is shilling shitty gear on /p/ they quickly sink to the slimiest depths of delusion and pettiness

>>4301302
>500mm
too bad it's not far enough
you need 600mm minimum
>teleconverters
same quality as cropping