There ya go. That's why we have insurance, that's right. Things break, get lost/stolen, etc.

Have only been on ONE Alaska cruise. Took everything with me. No "point-and-shoot", but my longest lens was a 70-300. For most of what I shot, it was enough. However, for eagles and whales… another 200mm would have been nice. Even 300 wasn't enough because the eagles and whales were too far away. For most of everything else, what I had was sufficient. Unless you're after "wildlife", any pocket "point-and-shoot" or even phone camera would be enough.

Or… I could paint a mustache and beard on the “Mona Lisa” and claim the artwork as mine, because now it’s a “new artwork”?

If that’s true, I’m upgrading from my 12 Pro.

I feel that. We went on a cruise the year before last and that time I didn't want to drag all my gear along, figured the iPhone (12 Pro) would be adequate. For the most part, it was. But there were some shots I took that it just didn't cut the mustard and wish I'd brought everything with me. Our next cruise, this past December, I brought the whole kit and caboodle. Better to have it and not use/need it, than the opposite.

How is that?

The nice thing about Photoshop Elements is that it's a one-time purchase. You're not locked into a monthly subscription.

Most of what I have done with the 200-500 has been at the 500 end. I'd LOVE the 500 PF. But I just can't justify the expense. You're right, there is no one perfect lens. Normally, my 70-300 is enough, even though I'm shooting mostly at 300. If the image is sharp enough, I can crop in to compensate and "fake" the longer lens effect. In THIS case, the example I posted, even 500 wasn't really enough. Of course, I'm normally not shooting from that far away from the action. Only in THIS case, it was in an inaccessible (to me) area and the location where I was at was as good as I was going to get.

I do primarily “fire” photography which involves water-dropping helicopters and retardant-dropping air tankers. Often they’re some distance away and with my 70-300, I’m always at 300, which isn’t enough. The other day, I was shooting a hoist rescue and took out “The Beast”, what I call the 200-500. Even at 500, it wasn’t enough. But a prime would likely have been better. Very difficult to hold the big guy steady. Sure, I could have upped the shutter speed but I can’t stand “frozen” rotors.

Example from that shoot, at 500mm:

(Download)

You are correct.

I have only recently heard of MPB and I, also, came across a great price on a Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. The transaction involved a trade-in of a Sigma 17-50, and I experience no problems at all. Smooth transaction. Item appears to have not been touched by human hands. Excellent condition. Very pleased.

Because you had ONE bad experience?

That’s great but even $1000 is not happening for me. Thank you.

Some good advice, here. The lens I had was the non-ED version, by the way. As I said, I didn't have much experience using it. The PF is out of the question simply on price. I never considered the fresnel issue you mentioned. Very interesting. So, your recommendation would be the AFS version. Yes?

I'm presently shooting with a Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G ED IF on a D7100 and D7200. Yes, I know it's a full-frame lens on a crop-sensor body but that isn't the issue.

I do mostly fire photography, which includes helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft of various types. I find that most of my "aerial" shots have been made with the lens at the 300mm maximum. I'm looking for a 300mm that will render sharper images than the zoom. Yes, I know that much of that is on me and my "technique" and ability to hold the camera steady. I get that.

Back in the late 80s/early 90s, I had the 300mm f4.5 AI-S manual focus lens that I used on my FE2. Back then, I didn't have many opportunities to use it and it was stolen (along with all my gear) in 1994. Never replaced it. But I'm looking to add a 300mm to my "arsenal" once again.

My choices are between that same lens I used to have, the 300mm f4.5 AI-S, a somewhat newer f4 AF or the even newer F4 AFS. Of course aircraft aren't moving around in the frame quite as fast as birds do, so I supposed my question, to start is… is the AF that important for what I do? If it is, is the AFS lens a better quality lens than the older AF, or are they both very close image-wise?

Between the AF and the AFS, all I've been able to find out is that the AF's autofocus is significantly slower than with the AFS. But, slow as it is, it's still faster than MY own ability to get focus. In other words, is it fast enough? Or should I just look for the manual focus version?

Apologies for the rambling and repetition, just looking for comments and opinions. Thank you.