File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/, why the hate towards superzooms? It seems that every time someone mentions a superzoom (be it the infamous 18-200mm VR or 18-200mm Sigma or 18-250mm Tamron, etc), they get flamed and told to go buy some primes instead.

Now I'm well aware of the fact that primes give you moderately to marginably (depending on the lens) better image quality than zooms, but when you're shooting things that don't stay still, on vacation or otherwise, I just find zooms way too convenient than primes. And no matter what anyone says, no you can't be running around with a 50mm prime and capture everything you'd be able to with a superzoom type lens. Oftentimes a shot only lasts for a moment, not nearly enough time to go switching lenses. Now I understand if you're going on a shoot with a model or if you're shooting architecture or landscapes or whatever, then yeah, obviously a superzoom won't give you the same results. But I don't get why a lens like the 18-200mm gets such a bad rep on here. Yeah, your shots may not be as sharp as that 50mm f1.4, but in my honest opinion, the flexibility of such a lens can't be beat. Having a less than super sharp shot beats not having a shot at all, in my book.
>> Anonymous
Yeah, is this you trying to convince yourself youre not making a bad purchase or something? If you were so sure, then you wouldnt need our opinion.
>> Anonymous
if i had free $600 and wanted to take one lens and one lens ONLY with me for something like travel

yes i would buy it without question

in any other situation, no
>> Anonymous
Go buy the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8, then.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
I used a Tamron 28-200 for a while, and produced some fine images with it. I stopped using it because it's got some awful CA, it's a little soft wide open, it's plain fucking huge, and well, the reasons go on.

Primes give me speed and quality. I don't like using primes that are slower than an equivalent zoom, which is why I don't have any f/2.8 Nikkor primes (excepting macro primes).

Flexibility is worth something, for sure. But then again, that's why I carry two bodies if I can, one with a 17-50 f/2.8 and one with an 80-200 f/2.8. That gives me flexibility and the utmost quality. And if I need the light, I can pop a fast prime on one of the bodies. Superzooms just aren't fast enough to be a solution to my problems.
>> Anonymous
CHOOSE YOUR WEAPON.

That's all. *shrug*
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
There's nothing inherently wrong with superzooms; it's just that most of the superzoom lenses produced don't make that good of pictures, in an aesthetic sense. From what little I've seen, the Sigma 18-200 is actually pretty nice.

As for zooms themselves, this article is pretty in line with my thoughts on the matter:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/the-case-against-zooms.html

And there's also sort of a philosophical difference: are you trying to get pictures of stuff, or get a certain sort of picture? Does anyone get what I mean by that; I know it's phrased awkwardly.

>>159653
I've got an FZ8, and the lens on it is actually pretty kickass. Only problem at all with it is CAs when shooting into the sun at faster than f/4 on supertele lengths and a tendency to flare.

Pictures from it are beautiful, though. Lots of pop and great bokeh.

(Pic related to all the above, especially CA and bokeh. Shot wide open (f/3.3) at full tele, almost exactly parallel to the setting sun.)