>>4240159>this is the second time you have said no one can think of an example for using a 50-400 but i told you twice and someone else told you a third time"When something gets close" is not an example you fucking retard.
>Imagine for a second you’re not already 20 yards away and things come close to you. Imagine shooting behind the net. Imagine shooting from the sidelines. How often do you see a pro photographer in any of those positions with a 50mm mounted? Hmmm...
You can come up with some contrived shit like "hurr i got this shot right before the quarterback smashed into me" but generally speaking even 100mm isn't often used in scenarios that call for a 100-400mm zoom. You would know this if you had ANY experience but it's painfully obvious you do not, which is why you're also coming up with shit like
>muh subject separation at 10mm and f/2.8Worse, you keep pushing a lens that is soft at the tele end, which means a pro would not touch it. This expensive but consumer quality zoom is shilled constantly, by you, as the ultimate achievement in photographic gear, and the reason everyone should always go Sony.
>Imagine you’re just at the dog park or you’re taking aisle shots at a wedding. Two situations where no one would ever carry a 100-400 class lens.
>You argue like a bitch.You argue like someone with zero experience, someone who has never owned a serious camera or attempted any real photography.
>Canon doesn’t have some lenses. Every class and type of lens is available on RF. That's not to say RF always has the best and/or cheapest lens in a particular class. No mount can claim that. But there are always good choices.
And right now you are the worst fucking shill on this board. I've grown to fucking hate Sony because of your constant snoy shilling and "muh snoy tamron zooms!"
