>>4045126>>4045130>The mk I is shitThen I'd hate to have the canon RF, as pic related shows, it gets btfo by the Sony.
You can bitch and whine and cry about how much you don't like data, but hunny bear, facts don't care about your feelings.
And no, "but you can't compare imatest because I said so >:(" doesn't cut it. If I'm resolving more lines per picture, I unquestionably have greater resolution.
>It's not as good as the Sony mount tamronThey trade blows, but yes Sony's deal with tamron is fantastic for Sony.
>The old canon EF is better than that SonyNot according to any of the data I can see.
>At 135mm the Sony looks like a kit zoomYet it's still got better resolution and contrast than the canon, that really says a lot about what you really think of the canon lens.
>I said TeleWtf are you talking about, a 24-220 is a superzoom, I highlighted it as one of the very few examples where canon was slightly cheaper.
>Sony don't cater for poor peopleNice self report, lol! You realise the canon lens is a stop slower, right? Who's buying an f5.6 lens in 2022, LOL!
>If I lie about the price of things as the canon kit hasn't been under $1300 except at launch, and only use the lenses you identified as being cheaper on canon, and I completely give up on image stabilization, then canon is cheaper!Oh hunnybun.
>Yet again, I don't care if objective measurements unquestionably show one thing, I have a different narrative I need to push!Lol
>Neither of us are prosNice self report, it's a nice little earner as a 2nd job for me, it added around $20k last year, so all these lenses are definitely not only in my price range, but I stand to make decent profit off them too.
>Why aren't you including tire size?Because I never included tire size, that was your thing??? Come on lad, grab a coffee, shake your hands and feet out, splash some cold water on your face, you're being exceptionally dumb this morning.
