> > i have all three of these. the 80-320 is a lot lighter, but shows more edge > light falloff until stopped down 2 stops. my 80-200 has falloff one after 1 > stop. the 80-320 also stays soft in the corners, especially at the long end, > until stopped down 3 stops. it's noticeably less sharp across the entire > focal length range even on the *istD. however, it is 1/3 the weight. i find > the Sigma TC to produce very distracting bokeh on my 80-200. i'm starting to > switch to Pentax TCs even though i lose AF ability. > > Herb...
Thanks, Herb. That's pretty much what I was expecting, but it's always nice to receive independent confirmation before putting things to a real-life test. I have no illusions that the 80-320 will perform to the high standards of the 80-200/2.8 used alone. But when I got the *ist-D I rethought what lenses I'd be using, and came to the conclusion that for a lot of what I do the 80-320 covered the focal length range I needed. And as my primary purpose for many of the shots is for web use (or, at most, 1280 x 1024), (and image corner sharpness isn't the top concern when shooting race cars) I can quite often get away with just a single body and lightweight lens. I'll probably still carry the heavier glass on race day itself, but for the practice and qualifying sessions I'll consider making things easy for myself. I'm not getting any younger, and carrying a heavy equipment load around all day (especially in hot California sunshine) was beginning to be tough. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 11:40 PM > Subject: Re: USA shopping list... > > > > Despite all that, though, it's the lens I use most. It even performs > > tolerably well with the Sigma 1.4x AF TC (although I suspect that the > > 80-320 I accquired recently will probably do nearly as well, and be a > > great deal easier to carry). > >
