Xerxes wrote in post #16897727
How do you think the ST 300mm f/4 would compare to the newer canon 300mm f/4 or the 55-250 STM? Of course the canon has IS but is the IQ similar? Just looking on Ebay here, some of these vintage primes are really cheap and have a nifty look
It won't be nearly as sharp, or have the micro-contrast, flare control, resolution, etc, as the newer lenses. But, the fact that you can get an old 200~300 F4 lens for $100 or less often, compared to $1500, is the big difference. Also, sometimes, you might want the look of the old lens. I happen to very much like the look of a vintage lens, it sort of has a character that reminds me of film days, the color rendering is different, it doesn't look like a modern lens when it takes a photo in natural light (under flash it's very similar to modern I find).
I find the best price/performance in vintage lenses to be the 28~90mm ranges. Beyond that, at the time, was hard to produce and was costly. There's not a lot of true macro in there, so I avoid macro stuff. Ultrawides were not a thing and were not nearly as fast, nor sharp, so for the cost, a modern lens for ultrawide is best. For telephoto, beyond 135mm~200mm, I just go modern after that. There's plenty of great 135 F2.8 primes. And a few 200 F3.5 and F4's that are sharp and good. But beyond that, I'd rather have a modern lens. The sweet spot for me is that 28, 35, 50 range. Lots of very nice lenses in that range for cheap ($20~50).