The 60-250 not only will be sharp - it is sharp. Astoundingly so. A superb and underrated lens.

John makes very valid points about long lenses - handling can be a problem.
I have both the 60-250 and the original Bigma (50-500, no HSM or OS), and I use both hand held, and can get good results. Putting them on a tripod and I get very good results - I am the problem, not the lenses when it comes to bad shots with them.

I have no inclination to join either, but can see the benefits, and downsides of both.

My husband is on FB.
He rarely posts anything but enjoys reading others walls. He keeps me posted on the goings on of my nieces and nephews, and now of my daughter-in-law on her travels in OZ.
Indeed without FB we would not know how a friend of ours in the US is progressing in her battle against total kidney failure - her niece posts a regular update on FB.

My brother (who is drawing his pension, and in many ways a total Luddite) is a member of both and loves them as he has friends around the world he can keep in touch with, without having to Skype them always.

No one forces you to join, and one forces you to be that active on them.

I can't see the problem with PU being on both - it may even attract more members to the forum!

We now have a blizzard. A strong south wind and snow going horizontally.
What happened to the thaw they promised us?

Why use RAW Therapee if you have PSE9?

It is a great lens. I got mine secondhand from someone changing systems, and for a bargain price too. I love it and use it often. It is one lens I wouldn't consider selling.

Not tourist shots at all - well maybe if they had been taken in daylight and with a fast shutter.

I particulalry like Millennium Bridge 2 with it's ghostly figures. In fact I like them all a lot. My least favourite is probably Leadenhall.

I'm with Peter - they are not sharp. Bird photos really need to be tack sharp. I have tried and failed, so I know how hard it is to do.

I like the second one more, simply because it is a tad sharper, but it still has an unreal quality to it.

Does this mean I have to become a Twit?

Your responses explain why it is only available in Japan.

It was the norm then. Even when I went to grammar school (196 the boys uniform in the lower school was shorts. They couldn't go into longs until the 3rd form. And girls weren't allowed trousers. Or patent leather shoes.