And again you simply cannot comprehend the fact that I have never said the adapter affected the optical quality of the lenses. So for you as well, let me repost my original statement yet again then I'll even break it down for you. I also never said "adapters are bad" I said why I have chosen to exclude them from my workflow.
"Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones) "
The fact still remains that native lenses are still typically optically superior than the adapted ones. Since you are simply not comprehending the completed sentence structure let me make these much more elementary statements:
EF lenses need an adapter to work on the RF mount camera
EF lenses may have missing features that RF lenses have
EF lenses will probably be optically inferior to RF lenses
Conclusion
I am not going to use an adapter and I am going to use only RF lenses on RF cameras because if I use an adapter it means I am using lenses that may have missing features and that are probably optically inferior. At no point have I ever blamed the adapter for these shortcomings. I was simply stating the causality between using an adapter and the shortcomings of the lens mount that its use enables.
See what I did there? No? Probably not, but it's ok, this thread is good for comedic relief regardless.
OK, mister Context Is Key...
The WHOLE post was about why you'd never use an adapter. Here's the CONTEXT:
You gave the following reasons adapters are bad. [emphasis mine]
"So, I will repeat my list of why
I do not use adapters again below since you missed it the first time:
- Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
- Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens
- Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
- Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
- I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
[end quote]
Let's take them one by one:
- Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
This would be true of ANY adapter on ANY camera under ANY circumstance. Check.
- Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens\
This would be true of ANY adapter on ANY camera under ANY circumstance, too. Check.
- Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
This again would be true, perhaps unless the adapter has weather sealing on both sides whereas the native lens and body do not. But,, all things being equal, true, of any adapter, any time.
So far, so good. If you'd have stopped here (or maybe gone on to add the additional inconvenience) you'd have been fine. But then:
- Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
Now you come up with one that isn't true all of the time, and arguably is NOT true in this specific case, and it's not really the adapter that's the issue here. Yet it's given in a list of reasons you won't use adapters (and you said "adapters" in general, note) and don't want to use them.
See how that doesn't FIT with the others?
- I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
And finally, reason number five is just insulting the people you're talking at, so it's no wonder you get pushback.