>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>168261 >A lot of those are now discontinued and rebranded minoltas into sonys but thats still 300~ "unique" lenses. Your 300 is achieved by selecting 'all' as the manufacturer. That gets you all of the third-party lens manufacturers as well who, as I've mentioned, sometimes make lenses for JUST Canon and Nikon, but (almost? Find a counterexample, I'm too lazy) never make lenses for JUST Sony/Minolta.
If you do a search for just Minolta and just Sony lenses, you get 94+20 = 114.
Now, of those, a good number of them are RS lenses or sony rebadges of Minolta lenses, both of which are *not* unique, they're just the same lens with the same optical formula and the same focal lengths and apertures, just with a different color scheme and logo. I.e., they don't count. I.e., GTFO troll.
Not to mention that, checking Sony's site, there are a grand total of 25 lenses you can buy new for the Sony alpha mount compared to 58 from Canon. And that's, again, counting Sony DT lenses but *not* counting Canon EF-S.
So, you don't have the back catalog you're claiming, and the current catalog is less than half as big.
>>168266 Annnnd reported for trolling.
You said the same thing the Pentax guy did, just with Sony swapped for Pentax, and with exactly the same amount of accuracy, and you rated him as a 0/10 troll. Therefore, by your own admission, your post was a troll. And not a good one.
>>168255 >Next time don't assume and don't stop at a 5 minutes Google. Wasn't an assumption, and wasn't a five minute Google. I remembered reading articles on dpreview about nikon-only and nikon/canon-only Sigma lenses, so I went there first. Didn't touch Google at all until afterwards when you discounted the made-only-for-crippled-Nikons lens...and then slapped my forehead and realized that the information was probably easy to find on Sigma's site. Which it was.
And what the fuck? *You* were the one who assumed, and you assumed wrong.
|