That's a bit mean H.
For sure, the Canon L super telephotos are VERY good, very good, none better imho, but in reality, would you really notice lots of differences at say A4 print levels? Pixel peeping probably, agreed, but how many people really do that? And is that an acceptable way to view an image I guess?
The Tamron 300mm f2.8 is pretty good, as is the Sigma equivalent. Optically, 95% as good as the Canon unit, AF wise, poorer I agree.
I'd personally rather go for the 500mm f4 - lighter and easier to handle, and suits my shooting wants better (birding/motorsport). You don't find a lot of birders using a 400mm f2.8 imho, most are using 500 f4, 600 f4 or 800 f5.6!
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
Everything is about money for you, isn't it?
I've never seen someone complain so bitterly about things they can't afford but would like to own.
In essence, what you're saying is that anyone who has INVESTED in quality glass is a fool because they could have bought a cheaper version of the lens by a different manufacturer, regardless of the quality differences.
|