Why is the 42.5 F/1.2 $1600 when the Fuji 56mm F/1.2 is only $1000?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
BeaverTerror
New MemberPosts: 19
Like?
Re: Not at all hard to understand
In reply to Ednaz, 5 months ago

Ednaz wrote:

BTW, the 100-300 is probably one of the worst lenses in the m4/3 lineup in terms of sharpness once you get past 200mm. You'd do better to slap a Nikon 300mm f4 on an adapter. Why would you pick THAT as your keeper?

Thank you for the well worded response. I would keep the 100-300 because it is 520g, less than half the weight of the Nikon 300mm F/4, which weighs 1330g. I use my telephoto lens to shoot rock climbers from the ground. Many climbing areas are difficult to access from roads and reaching them involve significant hikes while carrying full packs (of climbing gear).

For those of you who are wondering, I need a fast portrait lens for compositions like this, where a shallower DOF would help isolate the subject better than what's seen here. This was not taken by me. I was off camera somewhere nearby.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Meh.New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow