Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Paganman2" data-source="post: 465358" data-attributes="member: 37668">Folks i have spent the last 3 days doing some of my own testing of my lens at 220mm, and to get a fair comparison against my normal shooting at 300mm i chose the same planes under very similar conditions, and to my surprise and pleasure i have found All the shots at 220mm even viewed at 100% to be much sharper.Even under some difficult conditions of high level cloud where the AF had grabbed the shot the pictures have turned out pin sharp with very good levels of detail let me give you an example of what i mean, one aircraft i shot from over 7 miles away without the proper pp work on my raw file, i can read cleanly the airline name on the tail of the plane when viewed at 100%(that is impressive).So at 220mm and f8 i think this is definitely the best setting for the long end with this fine lens, and to beat this i think a prime would be needed.P.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Paganman2, post: 465358, member: 37668"] Folks i have spent the last 3 days doing some of my own testing of my lens at 220mm, and to get a fair comparison against my normal shooting at 300mm i chose the same planes under very similar conditions, and to my surprise and pleasure i have found All the shots at 220mm even viewed at 100% to be much sharper. Even under some difficult conditions of high level cloud where the AF had grabbed the shot the pictures have turned out pin sharp with very good levels of detail let me give you an example of what i mean, one aircraft i shot from over 7 miles away without the proper pp work on my raw file, i can read cleanly the airline name on the tail of the plane when viewed at 100%(that is impressive). So at 220mm and f8 i think this is definitely the best setting for the long end with this fine lens, and to beat this i think a prime would be needed. P. [/QUOTE]

Verification