'>>4296301
No. Want some more bullshit?

The f2 isn’t weather sealed and doesnt even come with a lens hood. Nikon’s 85mm f1.8 s is and does btw.

If you dont shoot nikon you might as well buy micro four thirds. Everyone else hates your wallet or has no weather sealing.';

'>>4296303
I think other manufacturers have weather sealed 85mm’s. I’m struggling to understand where you’d use a weather sealed portrait lens vs an f/2.8 zoom.';

'>>4296301
Yeah it's a stop and a third, it's a lot
EF 85mm /1.4 IS is also really good by the way and native adapter makes it act just like it would on DSLR, it focuses well, so it's not like there is no middle option';

'>>4296303
Sorry anon, not that I don’t think weather sealing is nice to have or anything, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone make it their deciding factor. And I don’t think it would be for me either. What kind of shooting do you do that weather sealing is the hill you will die on?';

'>>4296312
It mostly matters when you are outside in a not so friendly environment, like wedding or any other events, basically the more weather seals the better no matter why you have a camera out.';

'>>4296301
A crappy thread no one liked otherwise they would have bumped it has died thanks to your thought provoking question.
To answer your question no it's not worth it much less investing in the Canot ecosystem.';

'>>4296308
Sony doesnt except for the G master prime and $2000+ bodies like the a7iv and a7rv. Fuji’s WR notoriously doesnt work consistently except on the xh2 and xh2s. That leaves nikon, olympus, and panasonic.

>>4296312
You dont seem to understand this yet, but lens WR has to be better on mirrorless because of the exposed sensor and the massive amount of damage that occurs when water gets in the IBIS sled and all those flex cables on the mainboard. Water getting past the mount has a shorter path to more delicate parts.

A slight rain shower would permanently destroy your camera. The service bill would be for replacement.';

'>>4296316
cant forget dust pumping. it goes straight to the sensor now.
>its also a macro
>macro is mostly outdoor
>NO WATHA SEARING FAK U BUY CANON RF L LENSES
Remember, canon is the #1 brand because of the 30 years of pros with 30 years of EF L zooms being locked to one ecosystem and clueless normies buying rebels and r100s to imitate them. Not because canon is good.';

'>>4296316
>That leaves nikon, olympus, and panasonic.
So just Nikon then, really. I wouldn’t be opposed to switching systems as I’m not a canon fanboy or anything, but god selling and reacquiring lenses I have now would be a pain, they always sell for a loss. The only ones I really can’t think of a direct Nikon mount equivalent are the ef11-24 and the sigma 105/1.4 (though f mount works on the new bodies like native ?)';

'>>4296303
>you might as well buy micro four thirds. Everyone else hates your wallet
lol';

'>>4296323
>f mount works on the new bodies like native ?
Not if it doesn't have an ultrasonic motor.';

'>>4296308
>portrait lens
you realize there is no such thing, its a lens, it projects an image, it doesnt magically stop working when someone isnt in view.';

'>>4296330
It will if you don't buy the firmware upgrade; did you think face detect AF was implemented to help the customer?';

'>>4296323
>ef 11-24 f4
I have no idea how much the extra 1mm matters to you, but Nikon's always been weirdly dedicated to 12-24 f2.8 zooms.
>105mm f1.4 art
The F mount version works as well as it ever did.

>>4296327
To be fair no one except broke truckers and ken rockwell still use lenses that old and 9/10 complainers are overspending newbies who don't own any F mount lenses slowly learning they can't afford any nice full frame mirrorless.
>But I want to use this one since I can only spend $$$$ on (lens type) after spending $1700 on a Z7II (because I NEED megapixels) and it doesn't adapt, noooooo!
>-someone being spared the disappointment of finding out a budget friendly ken rockwell favorite is hazy and purple for the first two aperture stops
Nikon's decision to ditch half of F mount on Z was fair considered they're an underdog in terms of their share of soulless snapshitting journos. For the hobbyists who simply can't afford the newer lenses but want a nice body, they are keeping the market supplied by still making the D6, D850, D780, and D7500 and 38 F mount lenses brand new. That makes Nikon unironically more committed to reflex than pentax, and way more than canon (stopping production of all DSLR products).';

'>>4296339
>It will if you don't buy the firmware upgrade; did you think face detect AF was implemented to help the customer?
My sir, this is not a sony thread. All of the firmware upgrades for nikon users have been free except for one that adds a (useless for 999/1000 people) proprietary video codec that nikon has to pay for on a per-camera basis.';

'>>4296342
>My sir, this is not a sony thread
They learned from the best.';

'>>4296341
>the extra 1mm matters to you
Now 2mm with the 10-20mm

>no one except broke truckers and ken rockwell still use lenses that old
Where's the 200mm Z macro?

>finding out a budget friendly ken rockwell favorite is hazy and purple
Ken's never led me astray, except on Grado headphones.
They did sound good until they broke though.';

'>>4296349
>10-20mm f4
This lens doesn't even cover full frame before the distortion correction turns it from a shitty fisheye to a rectilinear lens. Nikon's going to take a while to release a counterpart to this if they follow their current trend (not relying on ridiculously excessive corrections).

also see: the rf 50mm f1.2 vignetting almost twice as much as the z 50mm f1.2. it's basically an aps-c lense.';

'>>4296351
>not relying on ridiculously excessive corrections
It was one of the first lenses they released.';

'>>4296358
>noooo optical corrections are bad too!
Yannick pls go.';

'>>4296349
Difference is I already own the 11-24 and not the 10-24. I built up ef lens collection using an old 1ds mkiii I got for cheap, and went mirrorless with the R. It honestly still works fine I don’t NEED an upgrade, but if the Nikon is the at much nicer, heck why not when the R finally breaks lol. Sounds like I’d have all my lens coverage anyway, and the only thing I don’t see having on z is the ts17, but I don’t own that yet anyway. Got some stuff to think about.';

'>>4296360
>It's only "excessive" when I say so';

'>>4296361
The only reason you're looking at Nikon is because of the 85mm or is that someone else?

>I already own the 11-24
Lucky you.
I think I'd be scared of hitting that front element on everything.';

'>>4296362
>>4296358
Are you really comparing correcting optical aberrations by bending light to correction a lens that doesn't cover full frame by digitally stretching the image

What's next, sony compares clear image (AI) zoom to telephotos?';

'>>4296369
Digital or optical, they're still corrections.';

'>>4296361
since canon T/S lenses are manual focus the adapters just transmit exif and run the aperture. they work on all mirrorless brands.

>>4296370
pilpul bullshit';

'>>4296341
>That makes Nikon unironically more committed to reflex than pentax
Disingenuous take
>and way more than canon (stopping production of all DSLR products).
Fair is fair, fuck them. If they didn't have the shortstack mount I'd shoot something else. Can't wait for the next K-3 to dethrone the 90D as the king of reach.';

'>>4296367
Im op, I was initially looking for an 85mm and saw those for RF mount. And then the Nikon shillers came and I’m not entirely opposed to the idea lol.

Suppose I could cheap out and use the ef 85, like someone else said.';

'>>4296375
>I’m not entirely opposed to the idea lol
If you want to bust your balls selling all your stuff just for one lens, go ahead.

Are you looking to sell the 1Ds MkIII?';

'>>4296371
>pilpul bullshit
Then what do you call them?';

'>>4296375
you dont actually have to sell all your stuff tho, depending on how much you want out of autofocus (full magic crutch mode for 90% hit rates on 60fps bursts vaguely pointed at a spastic quarterback, which IIRC you need an RF lens with beefier, newer motors for anyways, or "works great")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LoU553rJmc';

'>>4296373
>It's disingenuous to say that the company that has more, and better reflex products in current production DESPITE having a successful mirrorless lineup has a greater commitment to reflex than the one that tried and failed to transition KAF mount cameras to mirrorless and ran out of R&D money, killed the 645z succcessor, and had tamron make basically every single zoom
Nikon is committed to reflex because they like DSLRs. They're the ones who continued making brand new professional film cameras until 2020.

Pentax is "committed" to reflex like a 2/10 is committed to his fat girlfriend after striking out with everyone under 500lbs.';

'>>4296377
Yes the prospect of replacing lenses with z/f equivalents sounds like a chore desu. I wouldn’t switch just for a single lens, but I guess I was thinking more I’m not ideologically married to canon or anything like that. Perhaps the ef85/1.4 is in my future
>looking to sell the 1Ds?
Nah, even if I got rid of everything else I think I’d still keep that beast with a nifty fifty. Something about snapshitting with a massive brick that could beat back a wino just seems pretty fun.
>>4296380
I already do use ef lenses on my R and have no issue, I meant more if I somehow ended up switching systems but I think at this point for me that’s just unnecessary.';

'>>4296383
desu RF mount is basically
>just adapt EF
so the logical course of action is to get rid of the point and shit, keep the DSLR, get a 6dii for a travel body, and keep snapping away until every EF lens in the world finally dies';

'>>4296382
>Nikon is "committed" to reflex because they have inventory
ftfy';

'>>4296383
>I think I’d still keep that beast with a nifty fifty. Something about snapshitting with a massive brick that could beat back a wino just seems pretty fun
It is.
I've been looking at a 35mm IS just for my 1D.
The 40mm f/2.8 would have been perfect for full frame if only it used internal or rear focusing.';

'>>4296387
Pentax was one of the original companies attempting to push MILCs. The reflex commitment is a ruse. They never liked SLRs, just they failed at everything else. The K-1 is an A7R sensor (color science included) shoved in the vague remnants of a scrapped MF SLRs plans and they've been rebadging the same 3 cameras ever since. Now they're even re-releasing lenses from the early 90s as ricoh desperately tries to finish recouping their "investment" so they can hope to turn a profit off half frame point and shits. Fujislug tier brand.';

'>>4296389
>re-releasing lenses from the early 90s
When will they start re-releasing the good ones?';

'>>4296390
When the lone ricoh salaryman in charge of pentax finds the manufacturing equipment in a warehouse and makes room in the budget by working 5 years of unpaid overtime';

'>>4296375
>>4296301
As someone who's actually used both, the L is worth whatever they want to charge for it, it's flawless. It is massive though, certainly in the "think twice before packing" category, so if you don't have any emergent need for it it's difficult to justify the purchase. DS version is a meme, barely makes a difference to the look and only does anything at all when shooting wide open, but also cuts your exposure. The EF versions are all better choices than the RF f/2 imho, that includes the 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296393
Flawless lenses get so boring
>oooooh aaaaaaah there is no astigmatism visible on this pine needle on the edge or this eyelash in the center oooooooooooooh this was worth my $3000
>*zooms out*
Maybe, the voigtlander people were right all along. Flawless, soulless lenses but they're cheaper because manual so you can afford a wider variety of interesting things.';

'>>4296392
Imagine';

'>>4296394
threadly reminder that autofocus is satanic';

'>>4296398
the concept of satanic concepts is a barrier to gnosis';

'>>4296386
Canon decided either top tier top dollar glass or bottom of the barrel trash and no in between for RF. EF glass works seamlessly enough that it makes more sense to get the cheaper glass imo if you’re stuck on an RF body. Not sure I understand the business plan but Japan works in mysterious ways';

'>>4296316
>>4296320
You’re not actually so retarded to think the mirror forms some sort of hermetic seal over the sensor, right?

>>4296342
The contrarian squad has decided to start claiming Nikon is superior now, eh?

>>4296313
Yes, the infamous Western practice of holding Weddings outdoor when it’s raining.

>>4296320
Pretty sure they’re #1 due to having an absolutely massive spread of price-points, and EF glass being near universal across every camera system. In a decade, it’s probably going to be only them, Leica (Veblen goods), Sony and Panasonic left standing. Sony leads on sensor tech, Canon is vertically integrated and similarly diversified and Panasonic is Leica’s contract manufacturer.

Olympus should’ve made it, because m43 was a rounding error for them, but the accounting scandal ruined the company and the investors demanded they jettison anything not central to their medical imaging biz more or less.';

'>>4296402
>In a decade, it’s probably going to be only them, Leica (Veblen goods), Sony and Panasonic left standing
Sigma too.';

'>>4296404
Actually it will be only Sigma left. As the barriers that make CFAs a practical necessity continue to erode, eventually everything will use Foveon sensors. We will approach a film era situation where everyone uses the same sensor, but just builds interesting features into their bodies around the sensors. I think that the final companies will actually be;
>Sigma, obviously but they will no longer make bodies
>Pentax, filling the nice market of the DSLR foveon experince
>either canon or sony (only one will survive) as the 'pro' choice
>Lecia, in the same niche it has now
>Fuji, retro bodied Foveons
and that's it. everything else goes away';

'>>4296301
RF lenses are not worth any price. It's optical slop aimed at soulless wedding photographers.';

'>>4296398
>666
HEIL SATAN
E
I
L
S
A
T
A
N
>666';

'>>4296316
>Sony doesnt except for the G master prime and $2000+ bodies like the a7iv and a7rv.
Not true
Do better research before spreading misinformation
Idiot';

'>>4296408
Geh dich umbringen du verfickter
Hurensohn
U
R
E
N
S
O
H
N';

'>>4296405
>>4296404
>>4296402
Advanced cANNOT cope

>>4296409
Sony weather sealing doesnt work lol';

'>>4296405
>Still no full frame Foveon';

'>>4296405
m43 foveon when';

'>>4296405
>Fuji, retro bodied Foveons
Neo-"retro" kitsch is not enough to sustain an entire business on.
Fujifilm is learning this and Nikon knows it, which is why they only release a body in the style once a decade.';

'>>4296420
When the 4/3 system is commercially relevant again.
[spoiler] Never [/spoiler]';

'>>4296382
Pentax's lineup is 100% reflex.
>>4296387
This lol.
>>4296389
They tried MILC, people rightfully rejected it and they listened.
>The K-1 is an A7R sensor (color science included) shoved in
You could say the same thing about the D810. Sensors aren't reflex or mirrorless specific. A mirrorless camera is a gutted reflex stuck in live view sold for more money, usually with a new mount that requires new lenses that are sold for more money than their reflex equivalent, sold on the premise that DLSRs are allegedly obsolete.
>they've been rebadging the same 3 cameras ever since
KF is the only rebadge
>Now they're even re-releasing lenses from the early 90s as ricoh desperately tries to finish recouping their "investment" so they can hope to turn a profit off half frame point and shits
Those lenses are just like a Gibson R8';

'>>4296417
it's coming, you just have to believe

>>4296420
never

>>4296423
It is. Fuji is just has a greedy 'infinite growth' model. You could easily run a business on "Neo-"retro" kitsch" if you wanted too';

'>>4296449
>you just have to believe
I believe it; I just don't know if I'll be alive to see it.';

'>>4296417
There are rumors that sony exmor is making them a sensor.';

'>>4296301

i am not sure, get one with canon coatings, one can probably etch circuitboards with third party ones';

'>>4296435
Actual
Cope

Pentax cant make a good camera in any format. They went back to the last thing that sold because their mirrorless was just as bad as their DSLR live view would imply. They barely sell anything anyways.';

'>>4296476
>their mirrorless was just as bad as their DSLR live view would imply.
it was really weird the bizzaro k-01 brick they unleashed on us. Couldn't make it really smaller or lighter than a dslr because they kept the k mount and the dslr flange distance. couldn't really have the benefits seen in other mirrorless cams because as you say their live view is shit. the sensor was old and the processing was nothing remarkable. the ergos were weird. you really wonder what kind of jenkem the salarymen on the k01 team were huffing, and why they didn't poach the talent on the Q team. The Q was extremely based except for the tiny sensor. cell phone sensor renders it a toy camera essentially but otherwise its what pentax should have iterated for their proper mirrorless.';

'>>4296476
>Pentax cant make a good camera in any format.
depends on what you want out of a camera
k-1 fits my needs perfectly fine

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296489
I wish I was as based as the average pentaxian

>>4296476
The difference is actually that people who shoot pentax are real photographers who aren't wowed by stupid bullshit consumerism, so when pentax tried to release an inferior camera technology, they (rightly) rejected it.';

'>>4296489
looks like micro four thirds desu

>>4296506
holy cope';

'>>4296515
>looks like micro four thirds desu
holy cope';

'>>4296517
>aperture and ISO within the reach of equivalence
>is a pentax so soft lens, equivalent with crop sensor softness (but not reach)
>dead company that cant do video, so equivalent with olympus
>therefore at f1.8 or smaller and over ISO 400 the pentax K-1 reaches equivalence with the OM-1
QED.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296301
Isn't it the sharpest RF lens though? Not that it justifies the price or anything but';

'>>4296524
I love how people still think sharpness is what you want for portraits.';

'>>4296521
left looks like a phone or pentax';

'>>4296528
but how else would you see all those pimples, blemishes and hairs so you could bill more hours to the client for post-processing?';

'>>4296301
The Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 is better and cheaper than both of these.
Chuck on the EF-RF adaptor and you're set.';

'>>4296301
Yes, F1.2/1.4 glass is worth it assuming you are not fussed by weight/size and use the focal length a lot.';

'>>4296324
>the average joe is buying a 300-1200mm lens
lmao idiot';

'>>4296521
cANON been real quiet since this one';

'>>4296521
>aperture and ISO within the reach of equivalence
You got me there
>dead company that cant do video, so equivalent with olympus
Olympus can do video quite decently and their stabilization can replace a gimbal
>therefore at f1.8 or smaller and over ISO 400 the pentax K-1 reaches equivalence with the OM-1
The only f/0.9 lenses for MFT are chink garbage except for that 35mm equivalent Voigtlander';

'>>4296623
I hadn't seen it, been working all day. He posted it at 8:06 a.m. and my holidays are over.';

'>>4296669
>holidays
>8:06am
I used to think you were cool when I thought you were american. I am heartbroken to know that you are some eurocuck';

'>>4296301
You won't be able to take a good photo until Nikon releases a 24-120 f/2.8. Then once you buy that, the good photos will flow forth. Until then everything will be mediocre. You will buy lens after lens thinking you need this sharpness or that aperture and you will never, ever be happy with any of it.

Hope this helps.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296722
How did you get that panasonic lens on to the XH2?';

'>>4296722
Papa canon will get there first. Canikon chads will enjoy while you panasnoys seethe

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296726
>24-105
Nope, not even close, and the worst part is you have to buy a cannot POS R to use it
>mushy shadows from forced NR
>blob with incorrect dial/button placement
>colors so bad sony looks good
>self-destructing R5s
>video-focused junk
>drops to 12 bit raws when in e-shutter
>worst of all: no soul.';

'>>4296765
Nothing you listed would prevent them from stretching that puppy out an extra 15mm. Not a single one.';

'>>4296726
>canon
>admitting a mistake with a whole new product
If they were going to it would have already been a 24-120.

Canon makes a mediocre piece of gear
Nikon one ups them 3 years later
Pros are stuck on canon since the film OS system anyways so canon still makes money because they are the microsoft office of cameras - bloated junk with historical inertia keeping institutional users stuck, and sheeple blindly imitating them. Nikon is the mac of cameras. Better in every way eventually but only if you’re rich enough to start over or are new to the game.

This is just how the camera market functions

And Sony = chinese copy of windows';

'>>4296506
>people who shoot pentax are real photographers
let's not get carried away here
being a pentax user requires massive amounts of cope
>>4296521
>is a pentax so soft lens
okay, show how sharp your camera's photos are at ISO 3200

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296693
Maybe he's an expat in Saudi Arabia';

'>>4296693
hey im a yuropoor too';

'>>4296622
So you're saying that's a good deal for a rebadged Sigma?';

'>>4296771
>Nikon is the mac of cameras
I agree.';

'>>4297050
>niggon uses literal nigger faggots in their promotional material.
How will you people ever recover from this?';

'>>4297049
yes, since they added OIS';

'>>4297200
Lol no
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/s021_150_600_5_63/';

'Unless you are a professional, don't get the f1.2

I have the f2 and it's great. I don't even often use it because I really gravitate towards the f1.8 35mm and the newer f2.8 28mm';

'>>4297531
>cannot pos r users think weather sealing is only for professionals
this is how olympus and pentax users got such big egos';

'>>4296476

espio weather sealed 135 film compact seems good idea, too bulky though

k7 sooc jpeg is nice';

'>>4296484
This camera will be a sought-after collectible in 19 years, trust me.';

'>>4296301
f/1.2 is god tier

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296301
Better off with a zeiss 85 1.2';

'>>4300934
>he bought a $3,000 lens to take snapshits of his cat';

'>>4306832
you wouldnt?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4306835
No, I bought a $100 lens to take snapshits of my dog. (Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC, Nikon D800)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4306851
Good man';

'>>4296528
It is, wanting a "soft" lens for any subject is a meme for people high on fucking copium or deliberately wanting a visibly soft image not in focus. Usually for some meme artsy shit.
If you stop over baking images with post-process sharpening which literally highlights subtle textures and draws rings around it, "local contrast" which emphasizes any redness or gradients, and any other form of "slider" that retards who use Adobe software use all the time, you want a sharp lens.

Optical sharpness is the goal. Always has been, always will be.
Stop applying fake sharpness and you'll see how soft optics usually are, and then you'll be able to appreciate TRUE sharpness, from sharp glass, when you can simply not apply the fake shit.

There's literally no such thing as too sharp.
All instances of such a thing (and I mean ALL) where people even reference lenses being "too sharp" are always from retards looking at baked images. They're usually using Adobe software with sliders cranked up (defaults, btw) or they have sharpening enabled that they're not even aware of like with Adobe's "capture sharpening" bullshit that they might be oblivious to.
Everyone crying about stuff being too sharp is always busted for being an overbaked faggot if any research is done.
For example, anyone using dehaze/"local contrast"/curves/enhancements.';