The world is full of idiots and you don't have to look far or travel wide to find them. Enjoy the GOOD people here in UHH and take the rest with a grain of salt. Welcome!

There is a problem with "Full Ketchup". Before long it will be shortened to FK. Then someone will inevitably say "I see F, you see..." Nope! That line killed Soupy Sales.

He who dies with the most toys wins!

I would second that.

Actually, a combination of both. That faster lens needs more glass area to pull the light in. That greater area needs more engineering to pull all the extra light in and more elements (glass) to focus the extra light. The extra elements need increasingly sophisticated design, coatings, choice of glass materials, etc. to counteract fringing and other issues. Theoretically, we could all walk around with pinhole cameras that cost next to nothing, but the limitations would be severe. IF someone could come up with a 100% opaque material to put a microscopic pinhole in that was 1 molecule thick, you could overcome diffraction caused by the iris, but want to guess how expensive that process would be? SPEED COSTS.

Beautiful capture!

Congratulations! Your choice of a 16:9 aspect ratio is an infinite improvement over what 4:3 would be for those pictures. The wider aspect ratio is much more in keeping with how the eye sees a landscape. The pictures seem much more real and make the viewer feel a part of the scene rather than just looking through a narrow window.

One other reason to use a polarizer that has not been mentioned yet is the reduction of the blue cast caused by atmospheric haze. By reducing the blue reflections off of atmospheric particles, you get a truer color rendition of distant objects. This also contributes to the more intense greens you get with foliage. A green landscape from a helicopter will be considerably greener with a polarizer. They also increase the apparent sharpness. They are precision instruments in that they remove the reflection whereas a color filter, either on the lens at the time of shooting or in post processing, tints everything.

Here on the 7th page, I see a certain softened fuzziness with gentle haloing on the back of my brain. By God! I've internalized bokeh!

Excellent article.

With so much focus on the technical aspects of lenses, f-stops and focal distances here, sometimes the obvious can get lost.

Michael, you don't provide any info on the shutter speed or ISO for the photos. Looking at the first 2, everything to focus on is either grass or leaves and at a distance over rolling terrain. Unless you use a blindingly fast shutter speed, the slightest wind or even a breeze adds motion blur. A tripod won't help here since it is the subject, not the camera, in motion. Bumping up the ISO to increase shutter speed can help to a point, but there is also a point of diminishing returns (just like using a smaller f-stop) where the increased noise or "graininess" from the old film days of the higher ISO reduces the apparent sharpness as you zoom in.

In #3, the added moisture in the air from the sea spray only grows as you look further and further into the distance. The same thing occurs with atmospheric haze on a seemingly clear day. These environmental effects can have more of an impact on sharpness than any combination of lens factors, especially since they are cumulative with the increasing distance.

On any given day, the atmosphere is as much a part of the total lens picture as the hardware you are holding in your hand.

alx

PS. As for "You can clearly see the focal lengths of the lenses on the original quality picture", for today's average viewer browsing on a cell phone, those focal lengths visible in the photo are all but invisible to the "first time user" who doesn't have the foggiest idea what they should be looking for in the first place. If you are plunking down $850, you owe I to yourself to KNOW and/or LEARN what you are buying and if it is suitable to your abilities.

I photographed many an airshow with a 500mm handheld in the days before VR. Granted I would have loved a better technology that had yet to be invented, but to say a 300mm cannot be handheld is bunk. And for some, that $50 is make or break.

Let's also note that the thread here is "I am disapointed in B&H Photo". To throw in a NIKON ad claiming deceptive advertising is a red herring that casts back on B&H unfairly implying they were somehow complicit in an ad they had nothing to do with.

THAT is deceptive and unfair to B&H over a lens the OP hasn't even seen, tried or tested yet. I'd be interested to hear about the actual lens when it arrives. (I'd be happy to take the lens and test it if nobody else wants it. )

If the point is that what's in the box includes "The item is in pristine condition and includes the manufacturer's warranty.", it says MANUFACTURER'S warranty, not US WARRANTY. Nikon ships Nikon lenses (genuine, not counterfeit lenses) WORLDWIDE with a NIKON WORLDWIDE WARRANTY in the box. Unless the lens in question is a counterfeit, manufactured by someone other than Nikon, there is no misrepresentation in the ad.

There are so many different markets here.

You cannot assume, think anything without checking the facts and the ad as presented doesn't show model info on the lenses at all.

Price point. Is a 20 year old college student worried about autofocus on that lens that they can probably hold rock steady? Or is it the affordability? If you are at the point that VR is a critical factor, you really should read the full spec. I am not even seeing a focal length for either lens. Surely the buyer needs to dig a little deeper to see what they are about to spring for. Like any ad, this is a starting point and clearly the price is the temptation. But the buyer still needs to learn just what it is they are buying.

I can advertise a Ford for $18,000. If your idea of a Ford is an Expedition, what a steal! If you wind up with a used Pinto you really should have looked past the bargain price. An ad is an invitation to LOOK. It is up to the buyer to actually look. Btw, I see no deception in this ad at all. You need to look at what you are buying. (And I firmly believe a buyer should be protected - there is just no deception in this ad.)