Thanks Wes....I've read this review more than a few times and the lines I take away are; "The chart is tough on optical performance, and real life images do seem sharper. Stopping down from f/2.8 to f/4 will show a difference - and will make this lens very close in performance to the remarkable Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM Lens at the same aperture." My take away is the capture, by either lens, would be difficult to differentiate w/my eyes w/out pixel peeping.


I used the 2.8 lens a few weeks ago (at 200mm) and I thought the result was excellent, until I saw the same bird taken (at approximately the same time and angle) w/a 300 2.8 (prime)...wow (but the price tag falls into WOW)....feather detail (soft at 200 in comparison) was noticeably different (sharper w/300) w/out the post processing.


I need the 2.8 (and want a zoom) for my HB garden falls into the shade early in the day....so I'm assuming bburns' statement about price and "noticeably different" IQ means cheaper than the 2.8 w/better (?) IQ at 200mm. I would like to read these reviews and make my own decision on the matter.


Alex....I apologize that this post is veering off your topic line, but this may be helpful down the road.


Also Alex, another recommendation; pay attention to Sinh Nhut Nguyen's, a.k.a Nate, entries....good pix and good advice for birding.


Regards


Bill