I seem to remember you telling us that you would be ignoringEvidently Silent Nan is a misnomer for this poster!
Just remember that no good deed goes unpunished in these forums.
(Thanks for doing your original post, BTW.)
Wow. You just won't let this go. So don't buy DX lenses. I, fo one, don't care what you do. Well I do care that you keep filling up threads with you ridiculous rants.
The thread was 22 days old and you then brought it back to rant about a rant. Looks like you are the ridiculous one
Just pointing out the irony of it all
That still doesn't change the basic premise. Reviving a rant with a rant has no statue of limitations
--I guess that 200mm being equal to 300mm is the next that Ken will come up with... , both Ken and Thom keep amusing me with their ..."theories"! In this particular case I bet you my ...D800E he won't be changing the "article"..., he even "admires himself" (by talking to himself against a bath mirror) for his 70/80-200mm with 28/70-300mm comparison... AT THE LONG END!!!! ...Jesus what a troll!!!there's going to be some people here who will blow gaskets about this statement from Mr. Ken regarding the 18-300vr:
"It's a big lens on a small camera, and if you really need to cover 18-300mm in one lens, it does a fine job. It's at its weakest at the long end of the range, but still the best there is in an ultrazoom. The 70-300 VR isn't any better at the long end; if you need significantly better performance at the long end, you'll need the 80-200mm or 70-200 VR II or fixed lenses instead"
I won't provide the link but it's easiest enough found...
Everybody take a breath and let's keep it civil....
Best,
D
--It annoys me even more that people in this thread are defending him for comparing 200mm with 300mm... but again somebody said... "only an idiot would listen to him"... it seems that there are more idiots than I thought.... LOL ...WE REALLY NEED 70/80-200mm TO DO BETTER THAN 28/70-300mm AT THE LONG END... don't we now?
