Why is there only one type of lens for canikon 50mm lenses?
Personally i can't stand the rendition from double gauss normal lenses and would much rather a sonnar type arrangement. However it seems only Sony has a different optical setup in their 55mm, or i pay for an otus.
What the fuck canikon, you've had literally decades to produce a half decent normal lens with any other optical formula. I'm looking at you canon in particular with your practically unusable distracting bokeh on the 1.8 and 1.4.
>>2842828
just get a suny.
>>2842828
Maybe just go actually take photos rather than worrying about elementary shit senpai
>>2842828
how about you stop shooting >le meme bokeh then?
>>2842838
I do, for work
>>2842840
>Being this oblivious to the market
I would buy a sony, but clients want to see large cameras - the last thing you want to be doing is trying to educate an overly wealthy, short on time, 50 year old dickhead on why his preconceptions about cameras are as wrong as his desire to fuck 14 year old thai boys.
>>2842841
lul if your clients are picking you based on the size of your camera and not your work, then your work must suck dick
>>2842845
>spot the guy who's never shot professionally.
>>2842846
I've shot $5000 jobs on a 1Dx, and an X-E2 with a pancake. Clients care about your body of work, and your results. Literally nobody other than some small percentage of brides ask about your equipment before hiring you.
>>2842828
Pentax DA* 55/1.4, mate
>>2842828
>being a hipster fag
there's a reason everybody's using double gauss
>>2842849
lmao what kind of couples' brides ask about your equipment?
Not the attractive, successful, fit ones I'll bet
>>2843078
No, they're ones that got on pinterest and found a "how to hire a photographer" post by some other bitch who said "Ask your photographer what camera they use. If they didn't spend at least $5000 on their camera, you shouldn't pay $5 for their work! A real professional invests in their tools, and someone who doesn't will likely leave you in the lurch! Yikes!"
It's not correct, but it happens.
>>2843081
that's why you bust out your carl zeiss jena and tell her that you bought it from germany for $10,000
>>2843081
>Ask your photographer what camera they use. If they didn't spend at least $5000 on their camera, you shouldn't pay $5 for their work!
Okay then.
>Bride asks me how much I've spent on my gear
>About $3500 on the body
>$8000 on lenses
>That's why I demand this figure for my work
Friendly reminder that wedding photography is cancer because the sanctity of marriage has been ruined by modern society. Bridezillas are real and almost everyone in the wedding industry is more jewish than your average patch of Polish soil.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 350 Image Height 448
Because Canikon users aren't dumb enough to be jewed $1000 for a 50/1.8 with a """""""special""""""" lens arrangement when a modified double Gauss does just fine. If you're going to pay portrait lens money, you might as well buy a portrait lens. Zeiss 85, EF 135/2, 135/2 DC, etc. Nobody's going to be able to tell your 55 Sonnar from literally any good double Gauss design on your worthless Sony shill Instagram.
>>2843101
The entire point of the post was to correct the idea that anybody gives a shit how much you spent on your for how big your kit is. so telling us how much you spent on your gear is useless. Also what the fuck does the sanctity of marriage have to do with photographing a wedding?
>>2842828
Sony's new 50mm f1.8 is a double gauss design. If you compare budget 50mm lenses with midrange and premium normal lenses then you will always fool yourself into believing the more expensive lens has better "rendition". If you don't want budget double gauss designs look into the sigma 50mm f1.4 art. Also if you think Zeiss marketing names mean anything when even they admit they are just used as a general meaningless term than you have bigger problems.
>>2843153
I find it amazing that you took a post with an image of Godzilla in a bridal veil as the one to take seriously.
Also, it's about how commercialized society has become and how marriage is just an excuse to have a gathering and show off.
>>2842828
>Why is there only one type of lens for canikon 50mm lenses?
there are two: double gauss and tessar ('pancake')
there are is also a third type: sonnar lenses; but not for dslrs, due to flange distance, I guess
>>2842841
Use an extended battery grip. Problem solved.
>>2843143
>hey, dont buy a 50mm, 2hat you want is a 135...
Noob faggit
>>2843167
So you can't see the difference between sonys rendition and a nifty fifty? How about the different leica 50mm's?
Noob faggit
>>2843269
Theres loads of different starting points for optical formulae, my point was that despite all the possibilities there's only really one option for the most common fl on canikon.
Fuck it, i'm joining team sony, no one else compares for lens selection.
>>2843519
um...there are like 6
>not getting a broken 1d with broken L lens for show on a tripod and shoot with the sony when client leaves.
>>2843101
>watch shark tank
>kevin likes to jew the marriage market because all concern for money is out the window
>>2842841
what's the problem?
a7r ii + battery grip.
all of sony lenses are xbox hueg.
An interesting question would be, what's the most professional looking camera for the least money?
my guess would be a rabal with grip + an old zoom lens
>>2843526
You can pick up a 1d iii and 70-200 f4 L for about £600. Not that you'd want to.
>>2843520
6 phenomenal quality lenses, as opposed to 300 shitty ones.
Most of my work is portrait, where the new f2.8 zooms dominate their canikon counterparts, as does the 85mm, 28mm and 55mm and architectural, where adapting my ts lenses will be of zero disadvantage. The only thing to me its lacking is decent, flat field uwa solutions.
What other lenses would anyone need?
>>2843528
>6 phenomenal quality lenses,
6 starting points for a lens i mean
>>2843526
Nikon F5, or maybe a D7100 with a grip.
>>2843532
>d7100
a d3000 would be way cheaper
>>2843519
If you are talking about the sony zeiss 55mm I can usually tell by the extra chromatic aberration. I can tell a leica 50mm because their out of focus areas look like trash with the exception of the latest 1.4.
What difference do you see since you're such an expert?
>>2843533
I agree, but a 3300 with a grip doesn't look as pro as a 7100.
>>2843538
5% less pro looking for 70% less money
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model NEX-6 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.5 (Macintosh) Photographer Jason Hermann Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 157 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:06:25 06:22:07 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Brightness 6.2 EV Exposure Bias 1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 105.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2843543
I want one, but I only have a regular A7 and I'm worried the lens would put stress on the mount because >Sony.
>>2843544
buy tough e mount from fotodiox
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Mount-Replacement-Camera-Bodies/dp/B00OI8WK1M
>>2843538
>buying a d7100 over a d3300
leaving yourself out of pocket for a showoff camera
looks better than any canon.
>>2843661
name a better looking camera than this.
protip: you can't.
>>2843663
this kills the Df
>>2843661
>>2843663
>>2843665
easy
>>2842828
Comparison photos from the same scene between the two types, one of which you like and the other you don't?
>>2843672
>Muh professional support
Who cares about some plebs who don't have real jobs
>>2843673
fun fact: fuji has always made the best looking cameras
>>2842828
Sigma 50mm EX HSM.
I like how Sonyfags forget the fact that the FE mount by factory is actually plastic with a thin piece of metal covering it. They actually need a third party mount replacement to have something as durable to support their heavy lenses, most of them are the Zeiss and GM lenses they rave so much about.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1000 Image Height 1000 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:10:16 14:43:53 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 640 Image Height 512
>>2843813
...? In what world does this actually matter? When you use a big heavy lens, you hold the lens weight in your hand, and the mount only bears the (small) weight of the camera body itself. Broken mounts may happen if you drop the camera with a heavy lens, but if it's enough to break the mount, it's enough that it would have done major damage elsewhere anyways.
>>2843821
It means the heavier your lens the more it wobbles and gets too much leeway.
Good bye precision.
Also it clearly shows Sony can't design for shit. Or more likely they design the camera to break. Would you trust someone making your main tool, your bread and butter after this?
>>2843813
That was the first generation. Why are you still pointing out something from the past which they moved away from?
Have you ever seen Sony fans in 2016 beat on the dead horse that is 5D mark1 or D700 from the last decade?
That should put into perspective how pathetic you are.
>>2843824
>It means the heavier your lens the more it wobbles and gets too much leeway.
False. also, see:
>When you use a big heavy lens, you hold the lens weight in your hand, and the mount only bears the (small) weight of the camera body itself.
>Also it clearly shows Sony can't design for shit. Or more likely they design the camera to break.
Or it's 2016 and modern plastic is incredibly strong and durable, while being less likely to corrode, bend, or add to the overall weight of a body that's trying to be light an compact.
>Would you trust someone making your main tool, your bread and butter after this?
Uh, yeah. But I don't even use Sony.
>>2843826
Stay in denial. In material sciences we learn all sorts of stuff, like how different plastics behave. The ones used in consumer electronics (mostly ABS plastics and derivatives) are primarily elastic in behavior especially under load or pressure.
That mount construction has no place on a professional or higher level camera, not even Canon does that on it's lowest tier rebels.
Only the small ones with light lenses like the Pentax Q line or the Nikon 1 line has similar construction.
This is engineering fact, With the A7 lens lineup and uses you don't make this design to last.
>>2843813
fixed it mkii
>>2843850
They may have fixed something that wasn't broken at all because whiny faggots with a spec sheet like you kept bitching about it. Pro-tip, the mount could be made out of tissue paper, and it wouldn't matter when you never take the camera off your shelf (or more likely, even put it in your shopping cart)
>>2843850
Why are you reducing yourself to a whiny cunt who beats on dead horses?
It's unfair for honest sony criticizers to be put into the same box as you.
I have been shooting since 2012.... And I have no idea what you just said.
Gearferg
>>2842841
Lmao. I love you
