What do you get with a lens that costs 10x its cheaper alternative?

[walwyn]

Originally Posted by Derekb

And the above picture (not the thumbnail) shows perfectly what I have been saying. It is neither in focus or sharp.

Lets just agree to disagree...

That is probably down to the fact that the numpty behind the lens, taking the shots hand held in the middle of a crowd in the stands, had never photographed a motosport event before. Are you seriously saying that a first timer with a lens weighing 1.5kg would have done better? You might also want to factor in that the shot above was taken at around 600mm equivalent. IOW that 70-200mm zoom wouldn't have got the shot it in any case. I believe a 600mm Nikon cost well over £5,000 the Panasonic and TCON about £400.

[H4RDY]

After much contemplation I went for the 17-40. I havent been able to test its capabilities properly yet, but I expect, I wont be dissappointed.

Thanks for all your input

[Joe]

That's a nice lens H4RDY.
I'm sure you wont be dissapointed.
That Canon optic has become a bit of a legend in itself.


walwyn & derekb

you both have valid points regarding lenses. my 80-200mm and 300mm both 2.8 are very heavily used.
HOWEVER, just got a lightweight 28-300mm 5.6 It's ok, but I only use during daylight hours for snap and transmit jobs. Great for convenience, but I lack other options with this lens, as others have already said.
I have no illusions that this is gonna replace any bigger glass. It does a job...it's ok, that's it.
Sometimes there is no option but to use 2.8 glass........and it's more often than you'd think.
...and there's no substitute for getting the best position you can, regardless of lens used
Using both options on a regular basis also helps validate losses and gains for each option.