NOt as sharp but pretty cheap considering OS and HMS. I read through most of that thread and at F8 the images are very good. However, below and above that sweet spot the lens falter. I am not quiet sure what to make of it...seems to be a waste to spend $1000 on an unpredictable 500mm lens (since most will use it as such).
Zouloukistan wrote:
I'd just like a new Nikon 80-400
... with a constant f4 and a top-notch AF-S performance... now that'd be worth saving for... mmmmmmmmm... heck, even if it was an f4-f5.6 I could live with it.
The current one isn't quite a stellar performer, especially AF wise, to justify the price tag IMHO.
dj dunzie wrote:
... with a constant f4 and a top-notch AF-S performance... now that'd be worth saving for... mmmmmmmmm... heck, even if it was an f4-f5.6 I could live with it.
The current one isn't quite a stellar performer, especially AF wise, to justify the price tag IMHO.
And unfortunately the 200-400 also costs over $5000...... if you can find it. It's a great lens BUT it's large and heavy.
That lens appeals to a very different market from the Nikon/Tokina/Sigma 80-400's, or the Sigma 50-500 or even the new Sigma 120-400, 150-500...... All those lenses give you reach in a less expensive, smaller size - at the expense of speed.
You can't have everything in one package. It's all a matter of priorities.
More images from the new Sigma 150-500 lens (Canon-mount) are coming out that show some promise...
