I just read through Robin Wong’s review of the new 300mm f/4.0 lens. An excellent review with incredibly sharp images. Robin’s knowledge and skill levels certainly paid off for this review of a very fine lens. If I regularly shot with a super telephoto or if I had professional requirements – I would have preordered the lens! One thing really caught my attention, and that was when he started discussing the MC-14 1.4x Tele convertor and his moon shot. What hit home with me was two things – the 2x crop factor that so many rely on or believes in. When I moved from 4/3s to Nikon, I never found a way to do an accurate comparison that would be hard to disparage. Is that 2x crop really 2x? Does it really make a difference? Take into account the cameras, the internal processing, the crop factors, the actual diagonal measurements of sensors and how those play out with the differences in the final number of megapixels actually produced – and it really gets pretty complicated. In all, I moved to Nikon because Olympus’s dismissal of the 4/3s format cameras. But I really wanted lighter and smaller – and so eventually I moved to and predominately use m4/3s. However the second thing that that caught my attention was Robin’s moon shot. Wow, I had something that I could make a comparison with! Yet again, considering all factors – the tools become a choice of the user – and the tools are outstanding. Again - If I regularly shot with a super telephoto or if I had professional requirements – I would have preordered the lens! It just depends what you want and how the final result will be used. To my point – a photo of the moon – (an interesting comparison with Robin Wong’s shot - if this does not directly to the intended photo, the moon shot is 28 of 43 of his posted shots ) Below is a photo taken May 3, 2012, came from a D7000 (16mp), 1/250, f/8.0, ISO 100 with the Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR at 400mm, a 2002 lens. Original image size was 4928 x 3264, cropped to 1658 x 1244, and reduced in size to 1200 x 900 in Lightroom. To get the best out of the lens I should have been at f/11 or f/13, but I wasn’t. All said and done, the 50-200mm just isn't getting to the equivalent of a 400mm lens anyway you look at it.