The general public doesn't usually participate in camera fora. We are certainly a minority, with often contradictory preferences and habits. Representative ot the camera market? Definitely not.
Beautiful!
Yes no such thing as too many lenses! but because of budget limits and space restrictions and wife's excessive frowning, I cannot keep too many overlappin lenses. I already have 2 overlapping systems (RF with some EF leftovers and HC)Me too, that's why I've doubled some lenses.My hiking gear and my city-visiting gear are different.
You never have enough lenses, good for Canon and Leica.
I feel you pain
I don't know but Sony as well has lenses that are lighter than Canon's equivalents. I have always assumed that, in Sony's case, that had to do with smaller image circle due to E mount's smaller diameter... But I am probably wrong and ultimately size depends on decisions on lens formulas and how much optical correction v how much software correction
Same here - I've been often lured by "cheap" lenses and then ended up getting rid of them. I thought I had learnt that lesson but I have still wasted money and space recently with the RF 800 f/11 and the RF 24-240. Not saying that they are bad lenses in absolute terms, just that they do not compare to much more expensive lenses and when I have to choose which lenses to bring, I know which ones will end up in my bag - you could say "it shouldn't be surprising that much more expensive lenses are better", but I have had quite a few discussions on dpreview fora with people that were saying that the 24-240 had L qualities at non-L prices. I disagreed then and disagree now
All fora populated by people passionate in something do not represent the average user, that's no news to most of us I want to believe
I think that's underselling how small a minory us forum dwellers are: the general public isn't into photography at all! The majority that is into photography isn't using ILCs. The majority of people using ILCs won't participate in fora. And the majority of ILC users who participate on fora is being paid by Sony
At home, I store my lenses in Storm cases. For quite some time, I resisted adding more cases but I finally broke down and bought one more (and since they discontinued their soft padded divider system that I prefer in favor of the rigid TrekPak system, when I found a little shop that had them, I bought the two they had in case I buy another case...).
I've generally avoided that issue. The exception has been the RF 100-400, which optically is very good and is more convenient for travel. It's a case where for urban destinations I would often not bring anything longer than the 24-105/4, but the 100-400 is light enough that I will bring it if there's room, whereas I would not bring the 100-500L.
Sony's lenses are indeed sometimes lighter than Canon's equivalents.Yes no such thing as too many lenses! but because of budget limits and space restrictions and wife's excessive frowning, I cannot keep too many overlappin lenses. I already have 2 overlapping systems (RF with some EF leftovers and HC)
I feel you pain
I don't know but Sony as well has lenses that are lighter than Canon's equivalents. I have always assumed that, in Sony's case, that had to do with smaller image circle due to E mount's smaller diameter... But I am probably wrong and ultimately size depends on decisions on lens formulas and how much optical correction v how much software correction
Same here - I've been often lured by "cheap" lenses and then ended up getting rid of them. I thought I had learnt that lesson but I have still wasted money and space recently with the RF 800 f/11 and the RF 24-240. Not saying that they are bad lenses in absolute terms, just that they do not compare to much more expensive lenses and when I have to choose which lenses to bring, I know which ones will end up in my bag - you could say "it shouldn't be surprising that much more expensive lenses are better", but I have had quite a few discussions on dpreview fora with people that were saying that the 24-240 had L qualities at non-L prices. I disagreed then and disagree now
Nikon acquired RED recently. If Canon already killed Nikon, RED is considered to be dead either.
I like the way you thinkSony's lenses are indeed sometimes lighter than Canon's equivalents.
It could depend on the choice of materials, the specific weight of the glass used, on design etc...
Hard to say. Let's just suppose for our peace of mind they are crappily engineered.
Sigma est delenda: Sigma is to be destroyed (according to Google Translate). Are you sure this is from Boetius? and not from the secret appendix of Canon’s corporate strategy for 2024?Even the best Latin poets warned of 3rd. party lenses!
To quote Boetius: "Sigma est delenda".
I've never been interested in the 100-400, although I do recognize its convenience (as I did with the 24-240).
The optical compromises are far less on the 100-400 than on the 24-240, IMO.
I considered the 200-800, but not very seriously. When I need something that long (birds), I use the 600/4 II + 1.4x, and if I don't need something that long then the 100-500L does a better job. Same reason I was not seriously tempted by the 800/11.
A friend of mine moderates a watch forum. Most members post news and informations about their Patek Philippe, Rolex, Piaget and so on.I think that's underselling how small a minory us forum dwellers are: the general public isn't into photography at all! The majority that is into photography isn't using ILCs. The majority of people using ILCs won't participate in fora. And the majority of ILC users who participate on fora is being paid by Sony
I have doubts about that. Significant doubts.
Many photos at 800mm (or even 600mm and 700mm) are quite soft and it has nothing to do with the lens. So very difficult to judge until you try it yourself with favorable atmospheric conditions.
