The other night I had some time and thought I'd see if there were any recent reviews of this lens out there.
I found a few new ones that I hadn't read before. They were mostly positive, and this time came not from lab testers but from actual wildlife photographers - mostly pros - who wrote articles, blogs about their experience with the lens.
They all generally praised the lens, for its quality, versatility, and unbeatable value. They all added that certainly a shiny new 300mm 2.8 prime from either Nikon or Canon is obviously a little bit better, no surprise there.
Then I came across this "smart a$$" review on Adorama's site. These kind of people always make me upset; I try to ignore them but I just simply can't
I'd bet $100 he never ever owned one or even tried one...
After "awarding" 1 out of 5 stars to the lens, here's what he wrote:
"If you want the very best possible image quality , you will need a prime lens. Does not matter if you shoot Canon, Nikon .... A zoom is very convenient when at the sidelines for photos but if using for cropping and enlarging for action photos of events for clients only a dedicated prime from camera manufacturer will give you the best quality you are looking for . The MTF charts look really good on some non dedicated lens but just don't compare to real tools. Let's face it, for the money, GET THE REAL THING , just pay a little more. The difference will amaze you . There is just no free lunch when it comes to lens.
Bottom Line No, I would not recommend this to a friend"
there you go.