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.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. )
And thanks for sharing that cute squirrel shot.