Quote Originally Posted by LoneSierra
and a (seemingly very) marginal increase in sharpness worth me kissing $700 goodbye?

It may not seem like much from my data, but in Bryan's more carefully done comparison, the difference is dramatic.


Of course, by dramatic, I don't really mean dramatic. After all, in most situations with prints less than 8x10, I don't think the difference sharpness difference between a decent zoom and an phenomenal prime is that noticeable unless you crop. But if you want that extra sharpness, I don't think $700 is too much of a premium to pay for it. According to Bryan's images, the Mk II actually beats out some primes, and even with extenders it compares well with the 100-400 zoom. It is definitely worth $700 to someone who, as a result of the better IQ, does not feel the need to buy a 100-400 zoom. (The 100-400 zoom is of course still better at 400mm IMO, but at 300mm they're close).


I'm not sure if my lens is less sharp than the two sharp samples Bryan tested, or if the difference has more to do with testing conditions. Therin lies what I find most disturbing about the expensive lens (and the only reason I went through all this trouble): sample variation.


Anyhow- I agree that the Mk 1 is a wonderful lens. It is in fact only because the Mk 1 has been my favorite lens for years that I was willing to pay a premium for the upgrade.