>buy an f/4 zoom lens
>fall for the memes and believe I can only use it for street shit or travel photography because muh depth of field
>take some pictures at 70mm and above
>background blur is pleasant and everything I need from the subject is actually in focus
Unless I am doing a portrait at 35mm or at night I can't even see myself producing a photo with a wider aperture than this

It is an old meme when a zoom meant f6.3 at the long end with an APS-C sensor.

>>4428943 (OP)
If half your cat is blurry how will you count the individual hairs?

>>4428943 (OP)
Yeah I mean if you're shooting full frame and you can get close to your subject f/4 offers plenty of background separation. There's a lot of people who a crazy gearfags interested in nothing but bokeh-porn because they're unable to satisfying fill a frame, relying on le f/1.2 to make it go away

>>4428943 (OP)
cute kitty cat
here cute doggy dog

>>4428943 (OP)
An cheap and small f4 zoom on ff is an unattainable $4000 3lb f2 zoom on mfturds and a large and expensive f2.8 zoom on aps-cope

the current mirrorless f4 zoom lineup contains some of the greatest lenses made to date. primes that are not near pancake sized or perfect f1.2s are obsolete.

>>4429654
>primes that are not near pancake sized or perfect f1.2s are obsolete.
In a world where you have infinite money, sure.
Tell that to the chuds driving clapped out corollas to their wage slave job that their car was made obsolete by inventing the Tesla

>>4429655
>infinite money
Lol. One good slow zoom is often cheaper than 2 decent primes. Sometimes even the same price as just one prime, or cheaper than the cheapest prime that's "better" than it. They're the kit lenses on FF mirrorless, so they're cheap and being sold everywhere.

Today, you genuinely don't need more than the kit zoom and a cheap, small prime like a nikon 40mm f2 or a canon 35mm f1.8. You can even pixel peep if you want. The only reason to buy any other lens is because it is extremely small and makes your camera pocketable (pancake lenses), it's extremely specific (macro lenses/telescopes), or if you are a professional and have to meet lofty client requirements (expensive shit).

>>4429714
This wasn't always true btw, a statement like this would always be followed with
>And if you think the kit zoom is blurry stop noticing things shoot at f11 muh skill issue >:( i cant believe you bought an $800 camera just to think a mere pleb like you should expect edge sharpness at f5.6!
Nah they're actually sharp now

>>4428943 (OP)

The focal length makes more difference anyway. 200 f4 will be nothing but blur, more than a 35mm f1.4

I agree though, unless you shoot colour film indoors f4 is plenty.

Thoughts on this Shrigma?
Out of all the sample images I've seen, I quite liked the output within the 28-40 range, but everything beyond was uninspiring.

There is one (1) stop difference between 4 and 2.8. Hardly worth concerning yourself over.

>>4429853
>twice as much light is practically worthless
Maybe to you. For some style of photographers that's the difference between making the shot or not.