Now THIS is a big lens!

If I could afford one, I would have one for some cool shots, but that would be mounted on a tripod or some kind of mobile rig. If I could afford the lens, I could afford a way to get it some place without having to carry it. It might be fun to rent one to play around with for a few days.

Is something like that really needed? I mean I know nothing about cameras but that set you have seems to do what you want. Or is there something else that goes with that big lense, i.e., clearer pics, better focus, etc.

The big difference is the F-stop number. The lower the number, the more light it lets into the sensor. That means sharper images. You will see that at a lot of sporting events and air shows, very big lenses. They are typically 500-600mm focal lengths at f2.8. The one I have is F4.0. For most applications, it's fine if you know how to take advantage of it. F2.8 is very forgiving and does make for some incredible pictures.

In this case though 200-500mm zoom at F2.8 is a bit overkill. Most f2.8 lenses are either a smaller zoom range, or they are prime lenses, meaning no zoom, a fixed focal length. Prime lenses also have much sharper images because of the fact they don't have to tune lens glass to sweep through a range of focal lengths. They are dialed in perfect for the size.

So there really is no reason or purpose for a zoom f2.8 except as a "Look what I have " factor. Kinda like a pink Lamborgini decked out in Hello Kitty.

I could see it for nature applications where you don't have to move much. For sports and action, forget it, way too unwieldy.

Kinda like a pink Lamborgini decked out in Hello Kitty.

Click to expand...

Now that would just be wrong!

Check Dan's last pic in his Misellanoues debris thread!