Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 19, 2005, at 5:33 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
The FA 100-300mm sucks. The others I don't know. ...
Is the FA100-300 the same optically as the F100-300/4.5-5.6? I know
it isn't quite the performer that the 80-320 or F70-210 are supposed
to be, and it's not particularly great wide open, but I find it hard
to ascribe the word "sucks" to performance like this:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/21s.htm
I'm not sure about the optical formula or anythin, but what I do know is
that there are two different FA100-300s. The first one has that wobbly,
heavy and meanlingless powerzoom functionality. The 2nd is the one I've
got, and I've always thought that it's rather good, although I've neveer
actually done any formal tests.
Here are the first few pictures I took with it:
http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf/images/zoom1.jpg
http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf/images/zoom2.jpg
http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf/images/zoom3.jpg
http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf/images/zoom4.jpg
No 1 is just my testshot from the shop where I bought it 2nd hand. Wide
open at 300mm, as far as I remember. The 2nd a quick duck ;-) on my way
home after I got it. And so on. And so forth.
- Toralf
