pKai Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I think what kevinsullivan is trying to say is that there are many people comparing this lens to big whites such as the 200-400 and the 600 F4 because past 500, those are the only lenses out there to compare to.....
Such comparisons are not inherently invalid or crap as long as one considers the cost difference in the comparison. If one simply (an naively) expects this $1,100 lens to perform like a $12,000 200-400+TC, one will be sorely disappointed.
As a regular user of the 400 5.6L, 600 F4L II, and a former owner of the Tamron 150-600, I can say with authority that compared to the 600 -- my thoughts on the the 400 5.6L are above -- the Tamron is pretty decent considering its over a stop slower and 1/10 the price..... IOW, the Canon 600 F4L II's performance is not TEN TIMES better than the Tamron.
As I have said may times, what killed this lens for me was the non-functional AI Servo with my 7D and 1D4..... IQ was more than acceptable for its cost, size, form factor, and aperture.
Re, the rhino shot--- being brutally honest, I don't care much for the composition and processing, but IQ-wise, its quite acceptable to me.... Would be nice to know the EXIF info.
Edited on Jul 03, 2014 at 12:33 PM · View previous versions
|