Opticallimits

... has a plastic body ... ;-)

 

Translation: It's here now.

Just how sluggish (or not) is its AF speed?

The shell of the body is plastic - so what? A couple of expensive Nikkors are also not made of Magnesium. 300/4 PF E is such an example.

 

And the metal bodies of Fujinons just hide a couple of plastic parts inside. This I can say for the 56/1.2 because I saw these parts after the lens was cracked. I'd wonder, if anybody would find a single AF-lens without plastic parts.

 

AF-speed was definitely on par with the Fuji 100-400, or better. Others I could not compare.

WOW!

Waitting for you reviews!

And?  How does it stack up against the 150-600 C?

  Dustin Abbot reviewed the lens, he said:

 

      The AF is fast and accurate in AF-S mode, however the tracking performance let the lens down, just not being able to nail moving subjects reliably, not coming near the Canon 100-400mm lens's AF-C success rate!

 

  A pity as the lens is great in all other areas, maybe a FW update could do something to help. 

The Canon 100-400 is a kind of a lens, which costs nearly 1000 $ more - but I also read a review which said, for stills the Sigma resolves better at better contrast. On the Nikon side of things, there's simply nothing to compete with. The 200-500/5.6 is a lot bigger and heavier. 

Quote:And? How does it stack up against the 150-600 C?

Sorry but I am now in Sony land for a while.

Quote:  Dustin Abbot reviewed the lens, he said:

 

      The AF is fast and accurate in AF-S mode, however the tracking performance let the lens down, just not being able to nail moving subjects reliably, not coming near the Canon 100-400mm lens's AF-C success rate!

 

  A pity as the lens is great in all other areas, maybe a FW update could do something to help. 

 

I read that review.  I'm curious about Klaus' take on this lens.  I'll be patient...

You're really into long lenses now