aSevenArr

The glass itself is really VERY sharp - I have the 2x for my 100-400 GM. The IQ losses actually stem from your inevitably higher ISO settings due to the f11 limitation (obviously things get worse ...

Nice shot... I think that I've seen that one before however.

I have the lens and it's awesome. But... then again you'd hardly expect to see any minor defects with a compressed JPEG viewed on a computer screen... right.

I wish I had a dollar for every word that has been written about this lens. And really I'm at a loss to understand why it get's so much attention. It's crazy.  Other lenses occasionally have issues ...

Yes indeed and I 100% agree with you. Complain about the things that actually matter. A few particles inside a lens cause zero issues and returns drive up prices for everyone.

Great wall shot! Wondering if the pixel peepers were still screaming in there when you cemented that last block into place ;) Nice of you to leave them an air hole!

If you say so. In any case I should have added to my earlier message: expect some very slight softness and vignetting at the edges of the frame and a tiny bit more in the corners. Some of that is ...

Mine was tack sharp right across the frame despite the scare stories that in retrospect I wisely decided to ignore (although they did succeed in making me quite nervous). Heck I even shot a wall - ...

I had only one UHS-I card in my A9 recently (by mistake) and I was shooting with it a LOT that day and I didn't even notice any difference. I'm not sure exactly what this means yet, just saying. ...

As others have said this is almost certainly a reflection from the lens. In a sense it's a failure of the coatings involved here (likely both the lens and the filter) that are designed to reduce ...

Whenever I clean one of my lenses or a filter I like to try to get it completely spotless (BUT ... that's just my OCD screwing with me) However as soon as I'm happy with the results I always see ...

I doubt that's even possible regardless of standards if you read what I said in my earlier response. To get rid of every last particle would likely cost a lot more and be a pretty pointless ...

Even if your lens were assembled on a dust free planet in a dust free atmosphere by dust free people it would immediately start to accumulate dust in storage and in use. Not just from dust getting ...

Actually I agree with you but I'd add that they're not even required for printing VERY large prints - large prints are normally viewed from further away. Nobody normally stands with their noses up ...

Here's a good link for you... all about megapixels and the BS surrounding them... https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html

Cute but you'll need to get a lot closer than that to make a positive ID and for legal purposes. Either that or I'd suggest using about 600mm FL ;) It could be any pair of racoons based on that ...

If you’re planning to do astrophotography I might hesitate (and then do it after more research). Otherwise the publicly listed fixes are only the one’s that Sony is admitting to (always the case ...

I own both. The f2.8 is preferred when I want really light carry weight (compactness) and not bokeh, shallow depth of field or fast glass. The f1.4 is heavy and expensive by comparison. But I ...

I mean that in my hands (on an A9) they don’t feel very different - they both feel like heavy lenses. I haven’t stuck them on a scale, what I notice most however is the size difference. That’s all.

A Coopers Hawk patrolling his turf around dinner time... And a gorgeous small Pied Billed Grebe... trying hard not to get noticed...