Opticallimits

...arrived in da lab.

Quote:...arrived in da lab.

 

Woohooo!! 

Any ETA yet?

ETAs are there to be broken ... ;-)

 

The 100-400mm is really a brick. And it has probably the worst tripod mount ever (tiny).

Hold a 150-600 Sports, then get back to your "brick". Makes me laugh, your complaint... Tripod mount is good, especially that I can remove it completely. And I can tell you, this lens with its tripod mount is more stable on a tripod than a Nikkor 70-200/4 or 300/4 PF with their plastic barrels! I would have appreciated and Arca compatible foot, though.

The Fuji 100-400mm is longer than the Canon 100-400mm/Sony 70-400mm/Nikkor 80-400mm and just slightly less heavy.

In terms of "brickness" we really have to compare the physical focal length & speed, not the equivalent one.

The Leica 100-400mm is almost tiny in this comparison just to mention. Makes me wonder whether the Fuji is actually a full format lens ...

 

And I was talking about the size of the foot of the tripod mount, not about the ring or something.

Do you have the teleconverters too? I made a few shots with the 100-400@400mm with the 2.0x TC, the results were not really pleasing but that might be due to the fact I had no tripod at that time.

Quote:The Fuji 100-400mm is longer than the Canon 100-400mm/Sony 70-400mm/Nikkor 80-400mm and just slightly less heavy.

In terms of "brickness" we really have to compare the physical focal length & speed, not the equivalent one.

The Leica 100-400mm is almost tiny in this comparison just to mention. Makes me wonder whether the Fuji is actually a full format lens ...

 

And I was talking about the size of the foot of the tripod mount, not about the ring or something.

Bad as in "Nikkor 70-180 bad"?

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/358-micro-nikkor-af-70-180mm-f45-56-d-ed-photozone-review--lab-test-report 

You remembered this one?  :lol:

 

Yes, almost that bad. Makes me really wonder why ?

I mean - just an extra cm cannot make much of a difference in terms of costs.

Quote:Bad as in "Nikkor 70-180 bad"?

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/358-micro-nikkor-af-70-180mm-f45-56-d-ed-photozone-review--lab-test-report 

 

In that review, the "next" link is broken: it goes back to the home page.

Instead it should be "http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/358-micro-nikkor-af-70-180mm-f45-56-d-ed-photozone-review--lab-test-report?start=1"

Quote:You remembered this one?  :lol:

 

Yes, almost that bad. Makes me really wonder why ?

I mean - just an extra cm cannot make much of a difference in terms of costs.

I remembered the line about "the mechanical designers smoking some really hard weed" or something, and then I looked it up. Wasn't sure it was that lens specifically - but yes, I've been reading PZ since those times.

 

It really looks like both the photographic fads and design errors inevitably return sooner or later.