Sat 20-Apr-13 02:41 AM | edited Sat 20-Apr-13 02:42 PM by RRRoger
>This IS the "best" glass. It's just not the most >expensive glass. The whole f/4 set is pro stuff with the usual >gold rings. Check the reviews by reputable reviewers. In >70-200 the f/2.8 edges out the f/4 in sharpness by a hair so >small you'll never see the difference in any picture printed, >projected, or displayed on an LCD monitor. The 16-35 actually >is sharper than the 14-24 but has more (correctable) >distortion at the short end. I've loved my 24-70 for years but >I have to admit there's not much to choose between it and the >new 24-120 f/4, and the 24-120 has VR. If you check you'll >find Nasim Mansurov agrees with that assessment. > >The real question is whether or not you MUST have f/2.8 for >very narrow DOF. If you must, you'll pay more of course, but >you'll also wear yourself down if you try to carry it around. >Nowadays, considering the ISO performance of current cameras, >f/2.8 essentially is studio glass unless you're Joe McNally >going out with trucks full of lights, gear, and assistants. > >If you want to brag about how much money you've got in lenses, >go f/2.8. If you just want trustworthy gear and really fine >photographs, don't be fooled by price differences; go f/4. > >Oh, and I had to come back, Roger, and point out that your >lenses haven't gone up in "value." They've gone up >in funny-money, dollar-denominated price. You have to take >inflation into account.<Quote<<<
Perhaps it is the "best glass" for you. I would prefer an f/2.8 version of an f/4.0 lens every time. And that includes the 200-400 f/4, a truely Pro piece of glass.
My favorite lens is the 28-300, many would not consider it "Pro" glass.
And you do have a point about inflation, especially in relation to the price of a new comparable lens. But except for a rare colectable or during a shortage, used cameras have all gone down in price.