04-13-2011, 07:31 AM
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1302674358' post='7575']
Uh-oh... I guess you'll get some complaints from happy users. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
Well, I'm wondering how these happy users would argue that the lens is any better relative to the 24-120/4 which has a 2.5* rating.
It is viable to be happy with a lens no matter how good or bad it is. However, it still sits within a global performance context.
And I think it's perfectly Ok to point out that it is worse than a 24-120/4 which is worse than a 24-70/2.8 which is worse than a 35/1.4.
We rated the 28-300L with 2.5* and looking at the charts this fits fine. That lens has the double price tag.
Uh-oh... I guess you'll get some complaints from happy users. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
Well, I'm wondering how these happy users would argue that the lens is any better relative to the 24-120/4 which has a 2.5* rating.
It is viable to be happy with a lens no matter how good or bad it is. However, it still sits within a global performance context.
And I think it's perfectly Ok to point out that it is worse than a 24-120/4 which is worse than a 24-70/2.8 which is worse than a 35/1.4.
We rated the 28-300L with 2.5* and looking at the charts this fits fine. That lens has the double price tag.