NatureScapes.net Forums

E.J. Peiker wrote:Hmm, those look pretty good on this end for 100% crops and no sharpening.

Yeah, but the 300 f/4 does clearly look better. It would have been nice if you could have done the shots with each lens on the exact same subject. This does show me though that for something like dragonflies, where you need some pretty good fine detail and close focusing, that the 300 f/4 is still going to be the winner. I just hope they add VR before I am too old to do photography anymore.

with the ongoing debate between, sharp,unsharp, good lens, bad lens.  Does the word fickel apply anywhere ?
to alter that famous quote from George Barnard Shaw, "if all the photographers in the world were laid end
to end, they would not  reach a  conclusion ". It is all, in the eyes of the beholder,  regardless of what tests
are applied, Just one old mans opinion tho !!!

jimbo wrote:with the ongoing debate between, sharp,unsharp, good lens, bad lens.  Does the word fickel apply anywhere ?
to alter that famous quote from George Barnard Shaw, "if all the photographers in the world were laid end
to end, they would not  reach a  conclusion ". It is all, in the eyes of the beholder,  regardless of what tests
are applied, Just one old mans opinion tho !!!

I think if you are going to pay $2700 for an f/5.6 lens, you have every right to be fickle.  This isn't a $200 consumer zoom we are talking about!

I mildly considered this lens at first, but the price is just too high for an f5.6 lens. Is it $2,150 better than the 70-300 f4-5.6 for the extra reach? I'll stick with the 70-200 f2.8 and the 300 f4 and add a TC when needed until I can afford a lens like the 500 or 600. The sharpness isn't the issue for me since it's probably great for what I need, it's the value for the price which doesn't fit in my plans.