Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2023 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
kathala wrote: |
The 300 5.6 has a decent but not stellar reputation, and image quality is on par with the 100-300 5.6 L zoom
If you're interested: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XHrXeijkKB_ULZxcgJK_v4iPBbxAfOuuo-VuP5ESDvA |
I find the 300 5,6 to be excellent.
...
Can we seriously expect anything better? |
Absolutely. The Canon (n)FD 5.6/300mm IF (there's also an earlier non-IF version of the FD) is an above-average vintage 300mm lens, but several (not alll!) vintage ED/AD/ULD/Fluorite lenses are wy better. One of those lenses, the Mamiya Sekor C 5.6/300mm, is hilariuosly cheap. Unless you need the IF / close focusing capability if the Canon nFD 5.6/300mm IF, go for the Sekor C 5.6/300mm!
lumens pixel wrote: |
The bad reputation of middle range lenses results sometimes from the disappointing results of not so competent users. Whereas, not in all cases, people paying huge amounts for high end lenses would at least try to use them adequately. Though this is not always verified. |
Maybe. But when such a lens really shines, people quickly acknowledge it. Minolta MD 4/75-150mm for example.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |