The Data Is In: Canon Claims #1 Spot in Multiple Camera and Lens Categories for 2024

[Del Paso]

Was that a rhetorical question? It's bragging rights of course! Also, you imply that you actually take pictures with your gear, that's not how it works!

My- limited - experience is that only few luminous lenses are really usable wide open. The DSLR Tamrons zooms I've used weren't, at least not for landscapes. I dislike unsharp sides and corners.
Just being wider open can be a very theoretical advantage.

 

[Feathered.lens]

Ever shot wide open with inexpensive Tamron lenses? Mediocre at best...
What's the use of a wider aperture if its use is extremely limited ?

What’s your definition of inexpensive? Compared to the first party lenses from Sony every Tamron lens is inexpensive and I’d say 70-180/2.8 G2, 28-75/2.8 G2 etc. are pretty good.
I mean those inexpensive Canon lenses are mediocre at best too… that’s the reason they are the budget option right?
The use of a wider aperture? I mean the Tamron 50-400@400mm f/8 is definitely significantly sharper than the Canon 100-400.

 

[Feathered.lens]

My- limited - experience is that only few luminous lenses are really usable wide open. The DSLR Tamrons zooms I've used weren't, at least not for landscapes. I dislike unsharp sides and corners.
Just being wider open can be a very theoretical advantage.

Pretty weird to make such a statement if your experience is based on 10 years old DSLR lenses.

And why would you shoot landscape wide open?

 

[neuroanatomist]

And why would you shoot landscape wide open?

Just because you've apparently never shot a landscape image that includes the night sky doesn't mean that no one does.

 

[Del Paso]

What’s your definition of inexpensive? Compared to the first party lenses from Sony every Tamron lens is inexpensive and I’d say 70-180/2.8 G2, 28-75/2.8 G2 etc. are pretty good.
I mean those inexpensive Canon lenses are mediocre at best too… that’s the reason they are the budget option right?
The use of a wider aperture? I mean the Tamron 50-400@400mm f/8 is definitely significantly sharper than the Canon 100-400.

Inexpensive Tamron's 70-180 ??? Euro 1500...

 

[Feathered.lens]

Just because you've apparently never shot a landscape image that includes the night sky doesn't mean that no one does.

LMAO

Because that’s the typical case for landscape photography shooting wide open.
And these Canon lenses aren’t any sharper wide open.

 

[Feathered.lens]

Inexpensive Tamron's 70-180 ??? Euro 1500...

Did you even read my comment?

Is it normal that here are only die-hard canon fanboys?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is it normal that here are only die-hard canon fanboys?

There are also some Sony trolls here. Perhaps you've run across one?

 

[Feathered.lens]

There are also some Sony trolls here. Perhaps you've run across one?

I genuinely think that you’re not able to understand that there are people who use multiple systems and can appreciate the positive aspects of both systems.

I have the R5II because the A1 (and A1II) are ridiculously overpriced. But I still like the Sony system for the imho superior lens lineup. But I guess that’s something which isn’t allowed here

 

[neuroanatomist]

LMAO
Because that’s the typical case for landscape photography shooting wide open.

Are you genuinely unable to understand that not everyone shoots in the same way that you do? Look up some of the excellent nighttime landscape images posted by @David - Sydney, many of which are shot at wide angles at f/2 or f/2.8.

I genuinely think that you’re not able to understand that there are people who use multiple systems and can appreciate the positive aspects of both systems.

There are plenty of people here who run multiple systems, some of whom are well-respected.

I have the R5II because the A1 (and A1II) are ridiculously overpriced. But I still like the Sony system for the imho superior lens lineup. But I guess that’s something which isn’t allowed here

If Sony's lens lineup is superior for your needs, that's great. It's really down to individual use cases. The combination of 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8 is stellar for me. Sony? No. 3rd party? Starting at 28mm is a non-starter for me, and the 120-300/2.8 is very long in the tooth and optically inferior. I'm also an avid TS-E lens user, and while there are 3rd party options there the adapted EF-mount versions are superior.

If I had difficulty handholding my EF 600/4 II, I'd get a Nikon PF lens and a Z-something to put behind it.

At the end of the day, choice is good.

 

[David - Sydney]

And why would you shoot landscape wide open?

I have 3 main reasons for shooting landscape at a wide aperture:
- Waterfalls with stronger water flow can generate wind/spray around the waterfall if you are close up. If the foreground moves eg tree/leaves and then I would take a wide aperture shot (or high ISO) and layer blending the foreground with the longer exposure for smoothing the water or bubble trails in the water.
For landscapes with no moving foreground then I would use f9 or narrower for sharpness. For seascapes, I want the foreground to move/blur so use longer exposure times (and/or use filters). Similar for cloud movement for cityscapes. If I want light stars (sun stars or night street light stars) then I will use <f16 to generate them.

- Focus stacking a foreground panorama where there is limited light. eg foreground for a milky way shot during blue hour where the light is changing fast. It can be much faster to take 2 shots focused on near/far distance wide open and stack them rather than f9 and stack each panel before merging a panorama of say 7 panels for 180 degrees.

As @neuroanatomist mentions, all astro landscape skies will be as wide as possible offsetting ISO. I use my Samyang 14/2.8 @f2.8 at 15-20 seconds per panel @ISO3200 which gives a reasonable ISO vs star trail balance. If using a star tracker then you can stop down eg 20/1.4 down to f2 to improve vignetting/sharpness with a 30sec-2minute exposure at low ISO.

Aperture is used creatively at the end of the day for what you want to achieve.