>>4045105>Well, now you know why it's $800 more than the Sony, and still has worse image quality, lol.Both the Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8 and Sony FE 70-200 f/2.8 GM II are $2,800 at B&H Photo.
>>Wait, the data doesn't match up to my internal narrative :'(>Sony fag: muh data, MUH DATA, MUH MISUNDERSTOOD DATAYou don't understand the difference between DR and high ISO performance. You can't lookup pricing. You compare Imatest numbers from different sensors when Imatest explicitly says you cannot compare numbers from different sensors. And you ignore comparisons with results obvious to the human eye. You are a typical stupid Sony shill. mftards arguing about aperture equivalence are honestly better than you.
>>You can't compare across sensors>It's a measure of line width per picture height, Optical Limits also uses Imatest and they put this fucking note right at the top of the Lens Reviews page (pic attached). The repeat the note on each lens review. Go read about Imatest if you want to know why. You cannot...repeat...you CANNOT compare Imatest results across different systems. They are only comparable if the exact same sensor is used.
>>It doesn't hit -12ev, the review website is lying!Or you're just stupid:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=1504&Camera=1221&LensComp=1009>You'd think you'd be able to find some data to support that idea eh? What do you think all the links are, idiot?
