Upload & Sell: On
I read AM's article with great interest when it came out. He does indeed have a reputation for pumping the latest from Canon but I also don't think he is alone in doing this
The article is interesting and I believe for the most quite part factual. The 800 for some is a highly specialized lens and quite difficult for the unskilled to handle. Just look at the results from different photographers using the 800. I do think the article has some glaring oversights and even some contradictory statements. In the all exalted sharpness test, once again a FLAT, 2 dimensional, practically speaking, subject is used. This is great if one is photograph posters. What that doesn't tell you is how long sharp focus took to lock on or anything else mildly practical. My favorite section of the review is the ole "600 + 2x" section. Now we are entering the point of uber long lenses. The 600 = 2x gives the overpowering extra 80mm when talking within the 1100-1200mm range, a pretty insignificant amount, 6.66% of 1200. Followed by, " I am pretty sure that Arash, with his great concern for extremely sharp fine detail, would rarely if ever use the 2X III TC with his 600II" pretty much giving the long reach advantage to the 800 and that is the point of the 800, reach. Also with all the talk of using TC's on the 600 is there ever any empirical evidence offered for focus speed. Is AF speed all that important? For some no, but for others it is vital.
I'm not knocking the 600 in anyway, it is a tremendous lens. I'm just pointing out what to me are some interesting omissions to the article.