/p/ - Photography » Searching for posts with the image hash ‘vqhjY8OIuCmlo0Tto2/W1Q==’.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1496499985767.jpg, 491KiB, 1024x685

Anonymous Sun 24 Mar 2019 00:39:13 No.3453825 View View Report

Quoted By:

Reason Number 1 is Lens pricing.
FF has the largest userbase that buys beyond the kitlens.
The larger the userbase, the larger volume the manufacturers much provide.
Economies of scale ensures the largest manufacturing volumes becomes cheapest to maanufacture.

Hence you end up with third party lens makers like Tamron and Sigma providing lenses with the best bang for the buck.
And their best value lenses are Full Frame.

Sure you could argue Medium format is in theory better, but the userbase simply isn't large, so the lenses are produced in smaller volume and end up overpriced due to that.
So MF is out of the picture.

Smaller formats are dying out. Their userbases are tiny compared to Full Frame.
So sometimes you see micro 4/3 maker demand 1000 dollars for a lens, because they have to to survive.
But it doesn't change the fact that it's over priced and you could spend those 1000 dollars on a good F1,4 FF Prime, or a good F2,8 zoom.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1496499985767.jpg, 491KiB, 1024x685

Anonymous Wed 07 Mar 2018 18:09:51 No.3254323 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>3254196
>This is also why you can get an 80 gram 35mm with af on sony and a 200g 28mm f2 that outresolves every oem dslr 28mm ever, but costs only $300
In addition there is also a new Chinese company that has managed to make a 25/1,4 manual lens in the dimensions as the Canon 24/2.

The Chinese lens is sharper at F1,4 than the Canon lens is at F4.
The extra optics at short flange is a massive help at lower focal ranges.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1496499985767.jpg, 491KiB, 1024x685

Anonymous Mon 12 Feb 2018 19:53:03 No.3241167 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>3241134
>and also needing to cover such a large sensor also means having such a short focal flange distance isn't as much use
Do you have even 1 practical example from reality?

The E-mount 12-24 completely wrecks the EF 11-24 in all aspects at half the weight.
The E-mount Loxia 21 completely wrecks the EF Milvus 21 in all aspects at half the weight.
These are real world examples that prove you wrong.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC03731_1024.jpg, 491KiB, 1024x685

Anonymous Thu 08 Jun 2017 17:13:35 No.3091601 View View Report

Quoted By:

Pic related>>3091585
>Either the modern lens is much smaller at similar aperture, or the modern lens is same size at twice as large aperture
Not only is it the same size despite larger aperture, it also higher image quality in addition to that.

And... cheaper.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC03731_1024.jpg, 491KiB, 1024x685

Anonymous Sat 03 Jun 2017 14:26:25 No.3088318 View View Report

Quoted By:

Dat F1,4 25mm SLR-Magic lens.

It literally has twice as big aperture as the Canon lens, but they are same size overall.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Searching for posts with the image hash ‘vqhjY8OIuCmlo0Tto2/W1Q==’. 5 results found.

On these archives

Your latest searches