>>3863633>You said the Sony didn't have a retrofocal sectionNo I didn't, I explicitly stated any lens wider than the flange distance will need a retrofocal section.
Take 5 minutes, your rage is severely affecting your literacy.
>I don't care how NASA spells it!Philips also spells it the same as me, as evident by this patent application, a case where being incredibly specific and exact with wording is paramount.
>It doesn't weigh half as much, the canon only weighs 50% more, and is more than a stop slower. Ok Hun.
Did you notice that the canon also weighs 115% more than the Sony 12-24 f4, that's more than double! And the Sony is sharper, and less than half the RRP. Lol!
