Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lokatz" data-source="post: 644202" data-attributes="member: 43924">Snowcat,&nbsp; I agree with your statement that lens technology gets better all the time, but I'm not sure I can agree that this means superzooms have become 'very impressive'.&nbsp; In ColorFoto's tests, the Tamron 16-300 scored 39/49.5/42 with an average of 43.5, pretty much identical with Nikon's not-so-great 18-300.&nbsp; Tamron's older 18-270 was even worse.&nbsp; The Sigma 18-300, the other lens you consider 'very impressive', got 50/62.5/47.5 = avg 53.3, pretty decent in the middle but poor at both the wide and tele ends. Sigma's 50-100 is indeed a stellar lens, but with a zoom factor of only 2.0, that is a whole different ballgame.Don't get me wrong: modern lens technology is quite amazing, allowing such superwide lenses to capture decent shots.&nbsp; Their versatility and always-on capability doubtlessly make them attractive.&nbsp; If you want more than ok performance, though, they are still not great choices. My recommendation would always be to split that wide zoom range into two parts and go with something like a 16-85 or 24-70, plus a 70-300.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lokatz, post: 644202, member: 43924"] Snowcat, I agree with your statement that lens technology gets better all the time, but I'm not sure I can agree that this means superzooms have become 'very impressive'. In ColorFoto's tests, the Tamron 16-300 scored 39/49.5/42 with an average of 43.5, pretty much identical with Nikon's not-so-great 18-300. Tamron's older 18-270 was even worse. The Sigma 18-300, the other lens you consider 'very impressive', got 50/62.5/47.5 = avg 53.3, pretty decent in the middle but poor at both the wide and tele ends. Sigma's 50-100 is indeed a stellar lens, but with a zoom factor of only 2.0, that is a whole different ballgame. Don't get me wrong: modern lens technology is quite amazing, allowing such superwide lenses to capture decent shots. Their versatility and always-on capability doubtlessly make them attractive. If you want more than ok performance, though, they are still not great choices. My recommendation would always be to split that wide zoom range into two parts and go with something like a 16-85 or 24-70, plus a 70-300. [/QUOTE]

Verification