The test images, though not full size, look pretty darn good. Plus, it's small and fairly inexpensive. Yeah, a little slow, but you're probably not tele'ing at night. Aaaaaanyway, 200 isn't 300!
There is a big difference from first looking at a 300 or a 400 and then opting for a 200. There are a lot more options in the 200mm arena but the focal length is completely different...
Yes, I know that it's kinda funny first looking for 300/400, and winding up with a 200... haha
I think on the 300 front, I either want the Nikkor ED-IF, Pentax green star, or Tamron 350 mirror. The Nikkor is the easiest to find, but still not exactly "cheap". I'll wait until i find a deal on one, and either grab a cheap 200 in the meantime, or see what native (E-Mount) options I have to get me by.
+1 @ Tamron 300/5.6 fitting the purpose for some (fairly lightweight).
I don't use mine so much anymore since I usually roll with my Sigma 100-300/4 instead. Which btw, isn't a bad option either. It does get a touch softer from about 275-300 WO, but for the f4 & FL zoom range, a little extra pp is no biggie. Not exactly compact, but not a beast either.
I got the beater 200/4 AI. It is fun, but just shows me how much I want a 300.
200, along with my other telephotos, are on B&S, and I've got a few leads on 300/4.5 ED IF's.
