[Klaus]

Ahhh, some teasing again ... ;-)

[Rainer]

The EF 70-300L has impressed you on APS-C !



Just a guess...Rainer

[Klaus]

[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1291670029' post='4797']
The EF 70-300L has impressed you on APS-C !

Just a guess...Rainer
[/quote]






I can see that white glow on the horizon but this one is actually black.

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291672016' post='4798']








I can see that white glow on the horizon but this one is actually black.

[/quote]

Since I dont believe in revolution, I wont put my bet on the Tamron 70-300 VC but on the Canon 200mm 2.8 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Klaus]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1291672435' post='4800']
Since I dont believe in revolution, I wont put my bet on the Tamron 70-300 VC but on the Canon 200mm 2.8 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />' />
[/quote]






Too long.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291673680' post='4801']

Too long.

[/quote]

Since you said it's black... I looked at the Nikon lenses and saw you had given the 200 2 VR only 4.5 on average. So I can't see any other Nikon lens beating that. Maybe the Micro 200 f4 comes close but it's too long in the tooth to get such a rating I guess.



Which takes us back to Canon... and the only under-200mm L lens (i.e. prime... because I can't see any zooms getting 5 stars across the board) that you haven't reviewed (on FF) is the TS-E 24L II... and it's definitely worthy of 5 stars IMO.



GTW

[Sylvain]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1291678146' post='4802']

Since you said it's black... I looked at the Nikon lenses and saw you had given the 200 2 VR only 4.5 on average. So I can't see any other Nikon lens beating that. Maybe the Micro 200 f4 comes close but it's too long in the tooth to get such a rating I guess.



Which takes us back to Canon... and the only under-200mm L lens (i.e. prime... because I can't see any zooms getting 5 stars across the board) that you haven't reviewed (on FF) is the TS-E 24L II... and it's definitely worthy of 5 stars IMO.



GTW

[/quote]



Hmm GTW, I was going to follow you but seeing that the 17 TS-E didn't get an optical rating... I'm not so sure <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

I'd like to take a completely unlikely bet on the tokina 16-28 :-). IIRC, samples were absolutely impressive.

[backcountryskier]

Sigma 85/1.4 ?

[dave9t5]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1291673680' post='4801']








Too long.

[/quote]



Would 24mm be too long or too short?

[mst]

[quote name='backcountryskier' timestamp='1291680615' post='4806']

Sigma 85/1.4 ?

[/quote]



Most certainly not <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus