> (Note- I am aware that the lens will focus past infinity, and
> I determined infinity focus by focusing on a distant object
> manually and leaving the focusing ring in that position when
> I pointed it at the sky.)
Why does it focus past infinity? Is it because it has a different
positions for infinity at different focal lengths?
> There is at least one similar zoom I know of in the marketplace
> made by a competitive manufacturer that is in some important ways
> optically superior to the Nikon (...), albeit at a 50 percent
> higher price. There may be more, I have not tested them all.
Would you mind telling us which manufacturer you're talking about? If it
is for the Nikon mount, I would like to have a look at it. It's just
curiosity, since I don't have enough money to spend so much money in
this hobby of mine.
> 3. If the performance is acceptable to you, then the lens falls
> within your needs. As I said in the original post, if you can
> live with this kind of performance, then buy it. Just don't buy
> it thinking that there isn't a better-performing 80-200 f2.8 among
> the other mid-range manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta,
> Olympus, etc.).
I'm glad you said that. Otherwise lots of subscribers would have bought
a 80-200/2.8 at some point in the near future, since it is a common
belief on this list that serious photographers need a F5 + 80-200/2.8 .
> 5. The lens in question is built very tough. If I was shooting
> wars again--something I haven't done in years--that would be a
> huge consideration.
Lucky you! I live in Austria, some 200 km away from Yugoslavia, and last
weekend we had a toxic fall-out from the bombings over there. By the
way, it doesn't take something as serious as a war to be concerned about
the durability and dependability of your gear. (I always wanted to know
what moves a photographer to shoot a war. May I ask what your motives
were, and why did you accept risking your life to shoot pain and
suffering? Thank you very much.)
Best regards,
Friedrich
