Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vincent" data-source="post: 483819" data-attributes="member: 15675">It has been popular, which makes for the delivery issues.The PF is quite new and I have the impression that the G will remain as a none PF alternative for quite a while.Tests seem to confirm that the E is not as good as the G, the question remains if it does not have other values and what resolution difference really matters.Senscore:From these numbers the 105 Micro is 30% less in resolution as the 400mm f2.8E =&gt; does this make the 105 micro not sharp enough to buy?<a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2487424,00.asp" target="_blank">Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Review &amp; Rating | PCMag.com</a><a href="http://www.lenstip.com/431.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_300_mm_f_4E_PF_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html" target="_blank">Nikon Nikkor AF-S 300 mm f/4E PF ED VR review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vincent, post: 483819, member: 15675"] It has been popular, which makes for the delivery issues. The PF is quite new and I have the impression that the G will remain as a none PF alternative for quite a while. Tests seem to confirm that the E is not as good as the G, the question remains if it does not have other values and what resolution difference really matters. Senscore: From these numbers the 105 Micro is 30% less in resolution as the 400mm f2.8E => does this make the 105 micro not sharp enough to buy? [url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2487424,00.asp]Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Review & Rating | PCMag.com[/url] [url=http://www.lenstip.com/431.4-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_300_mm_f_4E_PF_ED_VR_Image_resolution.html]Nikon Nikkor AF-S 300 mm f/4E PF ED VR review - Image resolution - Lenstip.com[/url] [/QUOTE]

Verification