///M5

50-100 1.8 goes to 100-200 3.6 Of course NC did not have the Sigma 50-100 in stock to play with.

Sony 6300/Sigma 18-35/50-100 1.8 a 2x teleconverter and sony body adapter come to about the same investment as me buying a 70-200.

At the same time if the Canon on Sony adapter from Sigma works as promised, it may be interesting. Sigma MC-11. Supposedly just works with their lenses, but allows the above Sigma's to be put on a Sony 6300.

The 40-150mm on 4:3 is a great focal length, but nearly as pucking big as a 70-200 F4. In fact it saves no size if they built the same damn FL for an APS sensor. For that reason I don't see a future in 4:3, but do with APS. FF in mirrorless is also dumb. It saves you no size to wipe your battery life and be imbalanced by huge lenses. APS on the other hand if there were lenses being developed for it could be the winner. They are small enough to fit on a mirrorless and get you 2.8 glass in the size of F4 without losing reach. Wider normal lenses can be downright small. If those were available I would deal with the herky viewfinder for action shots.

On 4:3 there are a ton of fast lenses as well: Lens Focal Length F stop Voigtlander 17.5 0.95 Voigtlander 25 0.95 Voigtlander 42.5 0.95 Panasonic 42.5 1.2 Panasonic 12-35 2.8 Olympus Zuiko 75 1.8 Metabones Speedster .71 multiplier adds Fuji 56 1.2 Sony 55 1.8 Panasonic 25 1.7 Olympus Zuiko 25 1.8 Rokinon 12 2 Olympus Zuiko 12 2 Olympus Zuiko 45 1.8 Panasonic 20 1.7 Panasonic 14 2.5 Olympus 50 1.2

Can't find any tests on the Sony 70-200 G Master 2.8 either. It is $3k and I wouldn't buy one, but I have a suspicion that it may be stellar which also previews the future.

Then Sony is dumb and uses a different mount on their FF and APS mirrorless cameras. FF use the same mount as the SLR, the little ones use an Emount which means to run the Sigma above you buy the Canon version and the Sigma adapter. WTF.

Sigma doesn't offer image stabilization on their lenses which means Sony.

The problem I have atm is that I have an APS camera. When I bought it I was sure that FF was on the way out, but now realize that I am wrong. APS DSLR is on the way out. Look how many "new" APS DSLR lenses there are? No one is making things besides Sigma. Sigma has their "Art" lenses 20/24/30/35/50 in 1.4 18-35/50-100 in 1.8 24-35 in F2 If Canon/Nikon were making similar ones I'd be totally interested in keeping my camera. The 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, but at 25-83 F4.2 it isn't great for low light or bokeh. 18-35 F1.8 correlates to 25-38 F2.7 FF which is obviously WAY better.

No, but there is some wicked fast glass that works on a mirrorless. I didn't see what I needed to make me switch yesterday, but am trying to figure out if it is coming. I am afraid that Sony may be the way of the future in cameras as well. With Samsung getting lazy they are the only fully integrated company and are seemingly taking advantage.

Contemplating a manual focus portrait lens for in the house. My wife may really hate me.

Seen the Sigma 50-150 1.8? Wish it would mount to my body and have stabilization

Sonys flat out ahare lenses

Fuji doesnt care aboutslr

I also tried to have them sell me Nikon FF...they wouldn't, kept pushing the Canon.

And MK, new body vs new body the bang for the buck goes to mirrorless hands down.

I'll retype it later. Biggest problem with the mirrorless was the control interface. Why someone doesn't design a camera with a quick way to change the ISO, Shutter, Aperature, and EV in that format I don't get.

Motherpucker, I just typed a book and it lost it.

Budget being buying something with a kit lens and shooting, not buying used primes and a used body.

My take too. I think the Sony will work for that, but their lenses won't. Might give me the hope that in the future there is a solution in which case I might adopt now. Off to National Camera...

Along with teh 102,400 ISO

Completely useless spec though.

Also crazy to see the 42MP Full Frame sensor in a mirrorless. Sort of tells you where the future investment is...

Supposedly the a6300 Sony is as fast at focus as a DSLR. Mirrorless are nice as well if you want to manual focus since legacy lenses fit cheap and easily. Still some learning atm in combining phase & contrast detection. From an optics perspective and algorithm perspective long term it should be faster and more robust since there are more potential variables you can use to lock things in, but of course that makes the "learning" curve longer. Since Sony nailed it supposedly I expect others to not be far behind.

I am at a camera segue. Seriously contemplating the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I need the length and speed. Considering it is nearly a $2k investment though I wanted to review my options. Functionally if I sell everything I have and put that towards something else this is the breakdown. (all trending now prices from Ebay). Item Used Price 70D $715 50mm 1.4 $229 17-55 2.8 $540 11-16 2.8 $330 Total $1,814 70-200 IS II $1,655 G Total $3,469 Needless to say that means I can also look at what $3500 buys me in an alternative. That being said, my plan is to demo the 70-200 with Matt as well as just hang out and have some fun. The other demo I will do is on some mirrorless cameras. Looking at what I can get for $3500 really opens up some opportunities. I am concerned about the focus speed, but perhaps a used body now that I upgrade in a year resolves that as they have made huge strides. I was also unaware that they added a viewfinder on the mirrorless bodies. The Fuji 40-150mm 2.8 is a ridiculously great lens. The Oly isn't bad either. Long term this may be a much better choice for me, but I am only guessing from what I have read. Seth - exactly why I said I am open to the Nikon. I currently don't see how putting $3500 into Nikon would net me anything positive over what I have (with the 70-200 2.8 included), but in the mirrorless I am tempted solely based on size and future expansion. I am sure that the manufacturers will focus hardcore on that tech over the SLR.