04-13-2011, 08:48 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302679877' post='7579']
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.
[/quote]
I agree completely. There've just been a lot of "28-300 is better than 18-200 DX" type of comments. I've always been critical about those, and well, maybe justly so. However, the 28-300 may actually perform adequately on a 12 MP FX sensor due to the low pixel density, I don't know.
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.
[/quote]
I agree completely. There've just been a lot of "28-300 is better than 18-200 DX" type of comments. I've always been critical about those, and well, maybe justly so. However, the 28-300 may actually perform adequately on a 12 MP FX sensor due to the low pixel density, I don't know.