Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="topgunwghs" data-source="post: 120359" data-attributes="member: 12468">That sounds quite amazing and what I would like to get.&nbsp; I am looking for the best birding setup a (not so rich) student can buy.&nbsp; Also one that can handle massive white balance ratios like snow-capped mountains with a snow storm coming in and color definition while picking up all the evergreens.&nbsp; This it does quite well...[ATTACH]28700[/ATTACH]I am still returning the lens though, and will be looking into GOOD long glass, suggestions?&nbsp; Is it a rule of thumb to have the lowest and highest focal number on a lens closer to each other, in order to get best detail at full &quot;zoom?&quot;&nbsp; Ie: 200-500mm &gt; 50-500mm?That seems to be the case with this 18-300mm &lt; 55-300mm.&nbsp; Which is extremely disappointing&nbsp; not only does it cost 2x as much but it weighs alot, feels great and has lightning fast AF-S.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="topgunwghs, post: 120359, member: 12468"] That sounds quite amazing and what I would like to get. I am looking for the best birding setup a (not so rich) student can buy. Also one that can handle massive white balance ratios like snow-capped mountains with a snow storm coming in and color definition while picking up all the evergreens. This it does quite well... [ATTACH=CONFIG]28700._xfImport[/ATTACH] I am still returning the lens though, and will be looking into GOOD long glass, suggestions? Is it a rule of thumb to have the lowest and highest focal number on a lens closer to each other, in order to get best detail at full "zoom?" Ie: 200-500mm > 50-500mm? That seems to be the case with this 18-300mm < 55-300mm. Which is extremely disappointing not only does it cost 2x as much but it weighs alot, feels great and has lightning fast AF-S. [/QUOTE]

Verification