A couple of people are reporting that it holds onto f/4 SLIGHTLY longer than the old 70-300L IS, but that's it!! One of the two even says it hits f/5.6 at least 30mm earlier!!!!
So why did they make it weigh so much more and make it so fat if it's not even one bit faster?? I don't get it. If it improves IQ then why not just leave it skinny and use some fluorite to try to make up for it??
I hope it's not all about vignetting, I'd gladly have 300g and $700 less for a little vignetting....
Suddenly it now does seem overpriced at $1500.
f/5 by 135mm and maybe even f/5.6 by 200mm doesn't match the 70-200 f/4. It does add 100-300 but you'd think, at worst, this would even out the pricing....
If they reduce it to $800 or maybe $980 it still might be cool though.
But now there is a real trade-off between the 70-200 and the 70-300.
It's gonna need to blow away the 70-200 f/4 IS + 1/4x TC III at 300mm.
A little OT re: MTF, but read the CPN link posted earlier and they mention:
When carrying the lens around or when storing it, the lock switch can be used to stop the lens inadvertently zooming due to gravity. This helps to keep the lens compact when not in use.
Which confirms that the lens extends during zooming.
Why is it fatter? May also have something to do with the ring USM and/or the zoom design. The use of more robust materials likely increased the weight. Hey, it could be worse and be a 100-300 f/5.6. At least there is an option for f/4-5 at a number of focal lengths, and for those who will find this lens useful for its flexibility, the relative slowness can be compensated for by bumping the ISO.
rscheffler wrote:
A little OT re: MTF, but read the CPN link posted earlier and they mention:
When carrying the lens around or when storing it, the lock switch can be used to stop the lens inadvertently zooming due to gravity. This helps to keep the lens compact when not in use.
Which confirms that the lens extends during zooming.
Why is it fatter? May also have something to do with the ring USM and/or the zoom design. The use of more robust materials likely increased the weight. Hey, it could be worse and be a 100-300 f/5.6. At least there is an option for f/4-5 at a number of focal lengths, and for those who will find this lens useful for its flexibility, the relative slowness can be compensated for by bumping the ISO. ...Show more →
although the new tamron is smaller and also has USM and internal focusing (one early report on the nikon did mention heavy vignetting though, although I think could leave with a bit of vignetting for $700 in pocket and 200g out of my hands)
anyway we will see maybe it will actually blow all the rest out of the water at 300mm....
seems odd that they didn't put a focus limiter on it though, even the 70-200's have limiters
digitalbug30d wrote:
wow I am speechless and dont know what the hell these mean...
Cmon...really
Short answers:
The flatter the lines, the more consistant the lens is from center to the edges.
The higher on the graph the lines are, the better.
The closer the dotted and solid lines of the same color and thickness are to each other, the better.
