most of my work is destined for editorial stock to be printed no more than full page. although the FA 80-320 is acceptably sharp for that, the difference is noticeable compared to the FA* 80-200 at the larger sizes. it's when i am walking around with medium low expectations for a saleable shot that i use my 80-320 for the weight savings. i have a camera with me and it will produce acceptable quality in case i run into something that i just have to photograph (like my immature bald eagle). if i am going somewhere specifically to take pictures, i try to take the top lenses all the time. i'm rapidly gravitating to an all FA* or A* kit for my bird photography. do you have a set of pictures taken with your FA* 250-600? i am planning to order one (new) in the fall unless i come across one used in excellent condition. i'm also eyeing an A* 1200 used, although i doubt that will actually happen.
Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:50 PM Subject: Re: USA shopping list... > 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.
