>>4276808Sony has way better lenses than Nikon, and way more. Yes, nikon has an E mount adapter, but weather sealing and hot swapping don't work.
The only thing sony doesn't do is cater to photographers irrational attachment to f1.8 apertures with high quality primes in tandem with the modern photographers neurotic need for literally every lens to be sharp on thedigitalpicture dot com test charts and lenstip "el pee eminem" charts. They have a big jump between quality f2.5 and f2.8 primes that fit in your pocket and f1.4 primes that don't. That was for a good technological reason, f1.8 is a middling aperture that is hard to correct to make it sharp wide open and has to stop down a lot to sharpen up otherwise. f1.4 is actually easier to make a lens for, usually resulting in the same bulk as a sharp f1.8 and better results in the end. If sony tried to make a 50mm f1.8 that was as high quality as their 50mm f2.5 AT f2.5, it would be three times larger than their 50mm f2.5, basically the same length and nearly the same cost as the 50mm f1.4 GM, so their 55mm/50mm f1.8s go full classic with simple optical formulas that aren't as "sharp" but render more eyeball-like images, and as a bonus, are not gigantic.
Nikon went ahead and proved why sony didn't spend a lot of R&D money to cater to f1.8 autism by releasing the world's biggest f1.8 primes in recorded history. the 20, 24, 35, and 85 are not just 1.5-2x bigger than their sony f1.8 counterparts (the size of sony's f1.4 lenses), only ONE of which is a good f1.8, and sometimes as expensive as sony f1.4 lenses, just to be as sharp at f1.8 as an f1.4 is at f1.8, and as sharp as an f2.8 is at f2.8. they all have totally random filter threads due to design constraints. Sony, on the other hand, makes a point of using the same 67mm and 49mm filter threads on as many lenses as possible.
And then, for no reason at all (maybe defective autofocus on a $2k camera?), nikon went from being the #2 brand to the #4 brand.
