[obican]

From a real world perspective the lens is good, yes. We have to remember that we are talking about 42mp here. 

 

Would love to how it translates to a 24MP sensor. Center resolution will be off the limit, probably. Corners on the narrow end? Probably still OK. Worth the difference going for Sony and this instead of a Fuji and their 55-200? Probably not.

 

Why stuck? I thought with Sony you can use any lens while retaining stabilization and autofocus?

 

Only if you buy their latest body for 3200$ or so. No love for early adopters.

[davidmanze]

  It is somewhat strange that this first "go to" focal length zoom length is the one that has rarely achieved sharp results at the long end, center results however are very decent. 

  The Canon L series probably does the best, I have the Nikon offering, it's worse than the Sony. 

 

  Where Sony suffers from third party offerings is with the short registration distance, preventing a simple E mount conversion without an adapter.

  With Sony in the ascent, it can't be long before Tamron and Sigma start producing E mount glass, which would be a game changer for Sony's lens picture!

[stoppingdown]

Thanks for the review. When the 70-300 came out I had already bought the 70-200 Æ’/4, and I was wondering about the comparison. Glad I have the 70-200 Æ’/4.