Holger wrote:
And how often do they really use the big apertures? I find them much more useful for small focal lengths. 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, for example, to really get unique looks. For longer focal lengths images often look artificial, like a person zoomed into a room with a backdrop, and tend to get much more similar with differences often too minor to really make a difference. Esp. amateurs think images to look pro if shot wide open at f1.2. Funnily people often travel to great locations to make a photography session, but then use a Sigma 105/1.4 or 85/1.2 to obliterate the background and nothing can be seen of the nice location.
They can have their uses, of course. Oftentimes I feel them overhyped, however.
I agree with you. It is fun to see how much the technology can be pushed in many ways but there’s a) the real-world application of some things and b) the cost of it. I know a lot has been made about how with the Z and RF mounts that the E mount is now inferior because of the various dimensions including the throat size and how the design of the newer mounts will let Nikon and Canon do a lot more with. I think that’s absolutely true but how much of it will really translate into real-world benefits for most people? The “limitations” of E mount has not stopped Sony or other lens manufacturers from making some stellar optics that are also practical to carry.
Jul 23, 2020 at 01:49 PM
Previous versions of 2xbass's message #15292291 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
