Well, some people like to write and share articles (after all, what fun would it be if no one bothered to write articles?).
I just disagree with his choices. I also think the article is empty of any real content.
Lauding the 800mm lens is unnecessary, as it is a lens few will ever own. Its price tag alone suggests it is obviously stellar.
Of the realistic lenses shown in the article, in the ballpark for mo$t people, the 105 macro is a fine choice. However, the author doesn't really mention
why it's a fine choice, other than repeating "nano-crystal coating" comments and "working distance." The trouble is, the working distance of the 105mm isn't an actual strength of this lens (compared to the 200mm). The strength of the 105 is its sharpness, bokeh, and color rendition compared to everything else in the 90-105mm class. It approaches Zeiss-like quality, at less than half the price. It is also the only non-Zeiss 100mm(ish) range lens to have 270° of focus throw, which is significant (as most macro shooters use MF not AF).
As far as zooms go, meh
I personally am moving away from zooms.
The more detail-oriented I get, the more I value the strength of
primes.
Jack
