p.10 #1 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
Steve basically said all that needed to be said. I personally don't see primes as that much of a draw back and prefer them over zooms for the most part. The fact that I'd rather shoot the 500PF over the 200-600 told me all I needed to know more or less about that lens. I had both at the same time at one point. One I still have, the other went to Adorama's trade in department. shadow9d9 wrote:
Are they? Stuck at one focal length, pf drawbacks, and not fast. I don't see how they are better than the sony 100-400, 200-600, or 400-800. I see them as more expensive and more limited, at barely a difference in speed.
p.10 #2 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
I have the 300 gm, and do plenty of wildlife photography, and primes absolutely have a drawback. No reason to deny reality. You might not personally mind it, but that doesn't remove it from existence. Don't get me wrong...the lens is exquisite and light to boot...
The nikons mentioned are expensive, are not fast, have the typical PF drawbacks("Performance against bright light is not a strong point of the tested Nikkor. You can catch flares, there is a distinct contrast loss, and if you put the sun right outside one frame corner your photo will be overexposured and the brighter part will take quite a lot of space.-lenstip"), as well as the limits of being one focal length.
JadedWriter wrote:
Steve basically said all that needed to be said. I personally don't see primes as that much of a draw back and prefer them over zooms for the most part. The fact that I'd rather shoot the 500PF over the 200-600 told me all I needed to know more or less about that lens. I had both at the same time at one point. One I still have, the other went to Adorama's trade in department.
p.10 #3 · Do you feel Sony is falling behind on the low to mid range FF market?
shadow9d9 wrote:
I have the 300 gm, and do plenty of wildlife photography, and primes absolutely have a drawback. No reason to deny reality. You might not personally mind it, but that doesn't remove it from existence. Don't get me wrong...the lens is exquisite and light to boot...
The nikons mentioned are expensive, are not fast, have the typical PF drawbacks("Performance against bright light is not a strong point of the tested Nikkor. You can catch flares, there is a distinct contrast loss, and if you put the sun right outside one frame corner your photo will be overexposured and the brighter part will take quite a lot of space.-lenstip"), as well as the limits of being one focal length.
