creampuff
Senior Member
dnaxe my comment is as Erenon has stated. It relates to your earlier posts where you felt that changing lenses is troublesome and that an all in one zoom (aka superzoom) is the answer.
Unfortunately, even Equatorer who has not even got his camera appears to buy-in to the same thinking that an all-in-one lens is a good idea.
I think as photographers, we all want the best quality images we can get from our cameras. I have nothing against zooms lenses, or superzooms for that matter. Just as there are good zoom lenses, there are also so-so prime lenses too. I've had the chance to own or use many lenses, superzooms included. Heck, I've right now got a manual focus Tokina 20-200mm, one of the earliest superzooms among my lens collection.
Yes it covers a useful focal length (less on the wide angle because of the 1.5x crop factor), and I don't need to change lenses BUT here some of the issues associated with such a lens. It's not light and small, large filter size :bigeyes:, min focusing distance is longer than 2m (like a long tele), there is a tinge of purple fringing at the long end. Distortion wise, I'll bet if I shot something like a brick wall head-on, I'm sure I can see something. The laws of optics and physics don't change so the lens designers have to make some compromises to get the wide zoom range.
Why did I buy it? Because it was selling at $45 and not $450. :bsmilie: I do use it those times I'm lazy to carry a few lenses. In my opinion, superzooms only work best outdoors in bright light. They are not as versatile as lens makers would like us to believe.
Lest we get hung up too much on equipment, photography requires both a creative eye (which can be learnt) but also a degree of technical competence. Changing lenses isn't so difficult and the sooner it becomes second nature, the greater the opportunity for great pictures.
Unfortunately, even Equatorer who has not even got his camera appears to buy-in to the same thinking that an all-in-one lens is a good idea.
I think as photographers, we all want the best quality images we can get from our cameras. I have nothing against zooms lenses, or superzooms for that matter. Just as there are good zoom lenses, there are also so-so prime lenses too. I've had the chance to own or use many lenses, superzooms included. Heck, I've right now got a manual focus Tokina 20-200mm, one of the earliest superzooms among my lens collection.
Yes it covers a useful focal length (less on the wide angle because of the 1.5x crop factor), and I don't need to change lenses BUT here some of the issues associated with such a lens. It's not light and small, large filter size :bigeyes:, min focusing distance is longer than 2m (like a long tele), there is a tinge of purple fringing at the long end. Distortion wise, I'll bet if I shot something like a brick wall head-on, I'm sure I can see something. The laws of optics and physics don't change so the lens designers have to make some compromises to get the wide zoom range.
Why did I buy it? Because it was selling at $45 and not $450. :bsmilie: I do use it those times I'm lazy to carry a few lenses. In my opinion, superzooms only work best outdoors in bright light. They are not as versatile as lens makers would like us to believe.
Lest we get hung up too much on equipment, photography requires both a creative eye (which can be learnt) but also a degree of technical competence. Changing lenses isn't so difficult and the sooner it becomes second nature, the greater the opportunity for great pictures.
I maintain that I'm not actually in favour of superzooms in this present day and age beyond being clear that they have a place.
