Not complete. You ignored the fact that my response quoted an earlier post stating, “The real question is will [the rumored 100-400 / 200-500 telezoom] be f/5.6 or f/6.3 at the long end.” That is the context to which @unfocused was referring, and your reply was thus out of context.
Nevertheless, I opted to respond because 1/3-stop is...1/3-stop. It’s just not that significant, generally speaking.
Yes, silly people who made a 50mm f/1.0, but then replaced it with a 50mm f/1.2. It’s such a tremendous difference those silly people who did that were likely summarily fired in disgrace.
It’s reasonably likely that Canon makes f/1.2 lenses because others didn’t. Marketing is powerful, for example it’s likely a big part of the reasons the 5Ds had 50 MP and the a7RIV has 61 MP.
Sorry, I don’t feel any need to share RAW files. By not answering, you’ve quite effectively supported my point – 1/3-stop is not significant from a practical standpoint.
For the curious, the bokehlicious shot was at f/1.4. The image of the squirrel was at ISO 6400, and although it appears to me that image has a bit more apparent noise, the blacksmith was shot at ISO 12,800. (Yes, I cheated. Sosumi. )
That’s fair enough, Neuro. On the other hand Unfocused commented in a pretty direct manner which i thought was quite a bit disappointing to come across. Likely was having one of those days. Never mind.
And thanks for sharing that cute squirrel shot.
Upvote
0