12-06-2010, 11:57 PM
[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.
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.