>>4044990>Shit afStill better than the rp's
>Worse high isoSony is ahead up to iso 6000, 2 stops more at iso 100! You may as well shoot mft at that point, lol! At iso 16k canon pulls it's furthest ahead at nearly half a stop. More than 99% of my catalogue is iso 1600 or lower, nearly 1\3 is iso 100.
>These are bullshitNo they're not, the more affordable Sony 70-200 GM beats the canon RF Resolution by about 25% according to optical limits, and the tamron beats it by about 15%, and the canon has much more vignette than both.
>Muh high isoAlready gone over this, pic related to really expose how badly you're interpreting this. You've got to be coping and seething to look at these two and consider the canon.
>RF lenses have oisAnd there's an $800 price difference between the is and non is 70-200 2.8. you've got to be very dumb to "save" $500-$1000 buying a cheap canon body when your lenses are $800 more, each.
>Sony a7ii af is unusableShow me any review that says it has difficulty with still subjects like you claim.
>Video modeLmfao, all my years on p, still yet to see a single video posted
>I have fat handsI know burgerchan.
>>4044996>The kit is $1300That's currently £1070, £1070 + 20% sales tax is £1300.
>You'd be called based it you buy a 6diiNo, I'd call you a moron for buying a dead mount with an f tier body.
>The Zeiss is badThe Zeiss is insanely good in the centre and stopped down, optical limits have it topping out at 5200 lwph, about 15% better than any of the 70-200 above managed.
the canon kit lens has more than 12 stops of vignette at ALL apertures at 24mm and doesn't reach 3\4 the resolution of the Zeiss. Also got 6.2% distortion at 24mm, more than twice that of the Zeiss.
You're making yourself look stupid at this point babe.
>They're almost as good as canons pro lenses.Low Res, infinite vignette? Great!
>Does this look badYes Fabrice, it looks like horse cock, where's all the fine detail.
