Yes, the teleconverter issue is a problem for some.
On the other hand, Canon makes some greats that can't be matched imo. I had the RF 50mm f/1.2L. Yes, very pricey. When I got slaughtered by the pandemic I had to sell. I got the Tamron 45mm f/1.8, falsely reasoning and hopelessly hoping, "It can't be that much different." I was lying to myself, hoping to feel better.
The Tamron I have sucks wide open with horrible CA wide open. It's great by f/2.8. The Canon costs worlds more, but tack sharp at f/1.2. That's the reason for Canon for me. Someday, sigh, someday.
the RF 50 f1.2 is the best (or one of the 2/3 best, as I don't really follow news on other manufacturers) autofocus lens of his specie? Yes, absolutely. But cost around 2500€. but then comes a moment where you have to balance how much better a thing is compared to what you have, and what would be the cost of the upgrade. Sometimes it's worth the expense, sometimes (most of the times I dare to say) it's not. I'm pretty sure that any photo between the RF 50 1.2 and my Sigma is distinguishable in a blind test only on screen at 100%, or on paper if printed on a billboard and watched from a close distance.
Like I said, f/1.2 tack sharp is the reason for me. Of course, if you are doing f/8 headshots...Well, for me it all depends on "how much better" a thing is compared to another one, and relate that to the price
I have the adapted Sigma 50 f1.4 Art, which can be found around 600/700€ new and down to 400€ used, so let's say 500€ on average, a fifth of the RF. Is the Canon better then mine (and of course 1/3rd of a stop brighter, and also doesn't need the adapter)? YES, ABSOLUTELY, and by a large margin.
...but is it 2000€ better then mine? No way, at least personally for what I do (and I dare to say, it's not 5 times better for anyone, not just for me).
I heard good things of the Sigma 40 f1.4 Art, which can be found I think around 1000€ new; the RF is better? Hell yeah! The RF is 1500€ better? Well, again, not for me. And I thought in the past about switching my Sigma 50 with the Sigma 40, which is better (crystal clear by any test out there). But is it two times the price better? Again, not for me.
So, I like and appreciate nice stuff and great lenses
On a magazine cover, after retouch, you wouldn't distinguish the two, and you won't distinguish a plastic EF 50 f1.8 if all three lenses are equally shot at f2; on social media even less. So if I was to shoot billboards and worldwide campaigns I would maybe (not certainly) buy the RF, but as I shoot corporate headshots at f8 in the studio, or I shoot weddings where no couple ever asked me to print bigger then A3, I can say that there's no difference with my Sigma, so there's no reason to put in 5 times the price, at least for a working professional. Of course if someone wants the RF for the pleasure of having it that's absolutely right and sacred, but don't expect so much real life difference as the marketing would suggest.
Me too! Jazzed and broke. Lol. My priorities had to change. Bought 2 acres and gonna convert a shed to temporarily live in while we save to build. No building codes or permits in my remote part of the Ozarks. Gonna be off grid a couple of years.Aww thanks
I've been lurking...just a lot of work and family stuff recently. Not enough time for photography and posting, lol!!
I'm jazzed about all the cool, neat stuff in the pipeline though!
I shoot corporate headshots for a living, but that doesn't mean that I "like to do" them ahahLike I said, f/1.2 tack sharp is the reason for me. Of course, if you are doing f/8 headshots...
So we all shoot what makes us happy, or happy enough for what we can afford. F/8 doesn't work for me in most of what I like to do. Your in business. I'm not.
Oh, you misunderstand. I can no longer afford RF. All gone.I shoot corporate headshots for a living, but that doesn't mean that I "like to do" them ahah
I also shoot (apart from weddings) personal portraits (still for money, but mainly because I like to do them, as the income of those is like 5% max on my turnover), mostly in natural light, so I'm pretty familiar to shoot with a 50 at full f1.4 aperture, and I can say that again, with anything less then an A3 print or a full 100% monitor scrutiny, no one will distinguish the RF 50 from a Sigma 50 Art, they're both equally tack sharp at their max aperture.
And yeah, if someone can afford the RF, like you do, and likes to have it, it's a RIGHTFUL luxury to have it! But that doesn't change that the RF is not 5 times better then the 50 Art, for anyone and for any work, the difference is there, but it's negligible
(the pics below are with PP, especially the first, but believe me that the original raw are as sharp as it gets)
View attachment 208057 View attachment 208058
This way of thinking could be applied to everything. Is the Mercedes-Benz S five times better than the Toyota Corolla? Even the difference of 1.2 vs 1.4 can mean that you won't take some photos or not as you imagine. And when you consider that you can use the lens for ten years or more... But I agree that Sigma Art lenses are great. I have a 20, 35 (if RF 1.2 comes out, I'll switch) and a 105, and it's big and heavy, but awesome. I've been thinking about selling it and buying a RF 85 1.2, but I don't know if that would be better. And having two focal lengths so close to each other seems pointless to me.Well, for me it all depends on "how much better" a thing is compared to another one, and relate that to the price
I have the adapted Sigma 50 f1.4 Art, which can be found around 600/700€ new and down to 400€ used, so let's say 500€ on average, a fifth of the RF. Is the Canon better then mine (and of course 1/3rd of a stop brighter, and also doesn't need the adapter)? YES, ABSOLUTELY, and by a large margin.
...but is it 2000€ better then mine? No way, at least personally for what I do (and I dare to say, it's not 5 times better for anyone, not just for me).
I heard good things of the Sigma 40 f1.4 Art, which can be found I think around 1000€ new; the RF is better? Hell yeah! The RF is 1500€ better? Well, again, not for me. And I thought in the past about switching my Sigma 50 with the Sigma 40, which is better (crystal clear by any test out there). But is it two times the price better? Again, not for me.
So, I like and appreciate nice stuff and great lenses
On a magazine cover, after retouch, you wouldn't distinguish the two, and you won't distinguish a plastic EF 50 f1.8 if all three lenses are equally shot at f2; on social media even less. So if I was to shoot billboards and worldwide campaigns I would maybe (not certainly) buy the RF, but as I shoot corporate headshots at f8 in the studio, or I shoot weddings where no couple ever asked me to print bigger then A3, I can say that there's no difference with my Sigma, so there's no reason to put in 5 times the price, at least for a working professional. Of course if someone wants the RF for the pleasure of having it that's absolutely right and sacred, but don't expect so much real life difference as the marketing would suggest.
I think he's being more practical and wise for his situation.
Safety, modern systems (night vision, etc.), new bodywork vs rusty old, comfort, modern equipment - connection to the phone, navigation, ... there is a lot. If he wrote that he won't buy a new camera model, I'll take it, because it will be old in three years. But for example, the Sigma Art 35, which I use, came on the market in 2013. And if you spread the price of an expensive lens over 10-15 years, it's not so bad anymore. How much do you spend on cell phones during that time? I'm not saying that everyone has to have the most expensive equipment, but the idea - it's 5x more expensive but not 5x better is nonsense. This does not apply anywhere. Or if so, where?
Your looking at it from a still prospective I’m looking at it from a hybrid shooters perspective and after working in the motion picture camera rental business for 40 years.
I used my previous phone for about 12 years. Casio g'zone. I only gave it up because I got notice from my carrier that beginning x date, my phone would not longer work on their system. I paid $150 for this phone and have a 1 gig data plan. It's on wifi at home. I don't use it when I go places. $40/month.
I am currently 100% off grid. I harvest rainwater. Run a generator when I need power until I can build solar. Septic system. By next spring I'll be raising all my own food. I have no mortgage. I wear clothing until it looks bad. Photography is my single money pit. Well, and catfishing. The whole economy could collapse and I'll be fine. Pandemic taught me that.
I understand completely. I've not shot with my camera in a while now. I've been trying to clear 2 acres of Himalayan Blackberry. Not fun. Gotta dig every single root ball. These have been there for decades, with stumps sometimes 8" thick at ground level.Aww thanks
I've been lurking...just a lot of work and family stuff recently. Not enough time for photography and posting, lol!!
I'm jazzed about all the cool, neat stuff in the pipeline though!
