Lance B

Tamron 15-30 f2.8 with 77mm filter? I don't think so! It doesn't have a filter thread.

What an absurd post from an absurd poster.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. But again, why put Aussie in there unless you were trying to pigeonhole. I am putting forward a relevant point of view. I contend that it is you that is ...

It depends on what you are dong with it. Personally, I think VR can be a Godsend for travel for low light, like dusk and dawn and inside buildings.

Why would the "$12,000 lens mafia" - whoever they are supposed to be and what does that mean anyway - feel threatened by the 600 f5.6 PF lens? I see no evidence of *anyone* making comment about ...

LOL. You are dreaming *again* The 400 bare has hugely better resolution than the 300 PF, you can see that on the graph. If that were the case, then the camera plus lens combo would not register a ...

LOL. What has being Aussie got to do with it? Or are you painting all Aussie's as being rude. As for being rude by saying "head in the sand", what a joke. You must feel constantly offended in ...

I had the 24-70 f2.8G and I also purchased the 24-70 f2.8E VR. After 6 months of evaluation of both, I sold the 24-70 f2.8G. As a general landscape, citiscape walkaround general purpose zoom, the ...

The 400 is superb at distance. If yours is not, then you need to do some AF fine tuning. Another head in the sand comment. But at 400mm not 300mm. Add a TC to both and you have 560mm against 420mm ...

Really? And who's spec'd out summation was that? Certainly not mine. Not my educated guess. The educated guess would have had it competing with the likes of the Tamron 150-600 and Sigma 150-600 ...

You don't have to "know all the facts" to make a very well educated guess at what this lens will cost. You just don't like being told these truths as it doesn't fit with your narrative and you now ...

Watch the movie, then. It's a gem. Not if they don't have the facilities to be able to produce them. Where does Nikon conjure up the facilities and equipment to make these lenses at a mass level? ...

It is irrelevant whether the Canon made a big hit and makes big sales. They have to sell it for what it costs to manufacture plus profit, otherwise there is *no point* to it. Nikon and Canon are ...

Yep, those that can't afford the 600 f4E's US$12,500 price point. It will be in the vacinity of US$6-7,000, basically half the price of the 600 f4. Any talk of substantially less than this is just ...

Lighten up, Reilly. If you had watched the video clip that I attached to my post you'd have seen why I said, "Tell him he's dreaming" as it's a well used line from the movie, "The Castle". I was ...

Thank you for your response. Very interesting information and your arguments make a ot of sense, as usual.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dik_wnOE4dk

Exactly. I agree. Whilst I really like the 200-500 I would rather have paid more for it and have it have faster AF, Nano coat and maybe better weather sealing. In fact, I wish they would release a ...

I wrote this on another thread when the issue of supply came up in a post. It is an issue for sure, but I think Nikon have been caught with an unprecedented demand that they didn't realise would ...

Likewise with me and the 600E. I'm not even sure I want the 600 f5.6 PF when it comes out. It then becomes difficult to make a decision on which lens to take on an outing! :-) Thank you very much ...