>>4301406
Its L and FE mount only so there is no one single camera worth using it on, except for a nikon with that janky ETZ21 adapter, which may not even work with this lens.

Maybe the leica SL3, but sensor and video wise it's just the A7RVI with a bigger grip. Same slow shooting jello e-shutter shit as always. And this is a "sports" lens.
>whaddabut muh a7iv!?
The one that only reaches 10fps if you shoot 12 bit compressed raws?
>PANASONIC BODIES?
Worse AF than a Z6I in a canon sized body with sony tier ergos and colors? Maybe if you're a video codec fetishist who only publishes on youtube, like every other panasonic user.

This lens, as is, is worthless until they at least get a fuji X adapted one out. Z and RF are mandatory or sigma dies.

>>4301409
Manufacturer MTFs ARE objective. It's mtf wide open at infinity. Third party tests are inherently dysfunctional in a way that is clear to anyone who knows how lenses work and TO ANYONE WHO HAS USED A CAMERA

I have never, ever had the results of lines/height (or the superior LINE PAIRS PER MM) reflected in real use of real lenses BECAUSE I DO NOT SHOOT FLAT HIGH CONTRAST TARGETS AT BASEMENT DISTANCES. When I was new I would buy lenses based on this lines/ph "sharpness" charts and NOT ONE SINGLE FUCKING TIME DID THOSE CHARTS REFLECT THE LENS SHARPNESS IN REAL USE. Then I started buying on sample photos instead and surprise was more satisfied. Because these charts usually lie.

Now listen up, you fucking retarded gearfags
LINES/PHEIGHT IS A PURPOSEFULLY CONFOUNDING METRIC, ALWAYS CONVERT TO LINE PAIRS PER MM.
ALWAYS NOTE SENSOR AREA, PIXEL PITCH AND PIXEL APERTURE SIZE
ALWAYS NOTE FOCUS DISTANCE, IF FOCUS DISTANCE IS NOT STATED IGNORE THE TEST.
IMATEST RESULTS WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING FIELD CURVATURE DATA CAN BE SAFELY IGNORED.
IMATEST CHARTS THAT DO NOT NOTE CAMERA MODEL DATA AND PROVIDE A RAW FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS CAN BE IGNORED AS PURPOSEFUL FAKES
NO RAW = NO TEST!

Back | Go to board

Board:

/p/

Thread:

The greatest HANDHELD tele?