>>4045146You idiot. If you had the EXACT SAME LENS on 42mp and 30mp sensors you would expect the Imatest numbers from the 42mp sensor to be ~40% higher just because of the sensor advantage in resolution. That means if you're comparing two lenses, and the lens on 42mp is not AT LEAST 40% higher, then it is WORSE than the lens on the 30mp sensor.
In your graphs the Sony lens + 42mp sensor produces Imatest numbers that are 16-23% higher than the Canon lens on 30mp. The Sony lens is literally handicapping the 42mp sensor against the 30mp R sensor, proving it is the WORSE lens.
This is consistent with what we see here:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1417&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1137&CameraComp=1106&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0In this comparison the lenses are on nearly equal sensors (45mp vs. 42mp). The Sony lens gets its ass handed to it at every single focal length. It's just flat out blurry compared to the Canon RF lens. You'll find the same results comparing the mark I Sony to the older EF versions, the Tamron G2, the latest Sigma, and the latest Nikkors. You have to go back to the oldest Nikon and Canon 70-200 f/2.8's, from the days of 35mm film, to find 70-200s as soft as the Sony.
Attached pic is mid frame, 135mm, from the Tamron G2 (top) and Sony (bottom). The Sony looks like shit compared to a 3rd party lens that is $700 cheaper, and which can be easily adapted to an RF body.
Once again: by today's standards the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 mark I is consumer zoom tier. If you paid $2k for it you got fucked.
