>>4044790>A7ii and kit lens is £1100 in the UK, or £1400 with the Zeiss 24-70 instead.The 24-70 is a notoriously bad lens
>Eos rp and kit lens is £1350Sounds like you just got a bad spawn. The kit is $1300usd in most places around the world. Thats a thousand quid. It comes on sale as low as $999 which is about £820.
>RF mount lenses on the more affordable end are complete garbage They are almost indistinguishable from their pro level counterparts save for the superior background separation afforded by the wider apertures. They are also a little noisier than their expensive pro counterparts because you need one or two stops higher iso in less than ideal light, but because we're on full frame, it's not really noticeable unless you pixel peep or use the lens where it doesn't belong. This picture was taken on an el cheapo RF100-400. Does it look bad to you?
>on the expensive end they cost more than GM lenses and still perform worseThey cost more for the reason I stated here
>>4044600 . To say that they perform worse is blind ignorance.
>RP not only has a much worse sensor, it doesn't even have ibisThe sensor is from a 6dmkii, which also lacks ibis. If you were to buy one of those on the (massively inflated) used market you'd be called based. The 2 budget RF recommendations I made, the 24-105 kit lens and the 100-400 tele both have 5 stops of optical stab. Ask yourself how often you're handholding 1 second exposures. Ibis is good to have, but you don't need it so long as you have some form of optical stab on longer lenses.
>the autofocus is kinda shit, even next to an ancient a7iiNow I know you're baiting. A7II didnt yet have sony god level autofocus and the RP has dual pixel. The fact that you are recommending the 24-70 zeiss which is well known to be notoriously bad, shit talking perfectly fine low end rf glass and now saying that an RP has worse autofocus than a 10 year old sony tells me you dont really know anything.
