Originally posted by normhead And yet some of our best shooters are shooting with a 600 ƒ/4. If you want one, you can find one.
Yeah, exactly. The old FA* lenses produce astonishing images. And if it's faster AF that is needed, the user has probably left the brand a good while ago - which is a reasonable thing to do.
---------- Post added 10-04-21 at 09:21 AM ----------
Originally posted by normhead Personally I'd prefer a 420 ƒ4 to a 300 ƒ/2.8. I have the Tamron 300 2.8 and it almost always has the 1.4 or 1.7x on it. The DoF parameters in long lenses are such that ƒ4 is a workable wide aperture. I almost always use ƒ/5.6 in any case on APS-c and ƒ/8 on FF.
420 ƒ/4 would give me 700 6.3 with the 1.7. Not shabby at all.
Yeah, it definitely wouldn't be the best option for many things - I just figured that 300mm is one of those "long but not overly-specific long" lenses that many people would like to have, and thus it wouldn't be totally financially irresponsible for Ricoh to develop one.
That said, I don't presume to know what would be good compromises, since I'm a total noob with teles... I wouldn't even want/need a 300/2.8 (it's just not the kind of photography I do). So I'm happy regardless of what Ricoh make in the range
. For hiking I bring the PLM, or maybe the 400/5.6 if I know there are some far away vistas. If I ever needed a bigger lens, the 150-450 would have me completely covered, I think.