Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snowcat" data-source="post: 644314" data-attributes="member: 44121">Lothar, OK, we have  described our buying habits, which are surprisingly close to each other <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />BTW I've gone through tens of lenses myself also, even if we do not count old manual focus ones.Still, I cannot agree with your initial statement. As it sounds like a rule, which is not there actually. You say that "the more zoom range is, the worse is IQ". I say "not necessarily". Yes, there is such tendency really, but there are many-many exceptions I can name. Too many exceptions.Tamron 18-270 is MUCH worse then Tamron 16-300.Nikon AF-P 10-20 is MUCH worse then Sigma 18-300.Nikon 18-55 is MUCH worse then Nikon 16-80.Sony SELP 16-50 is MUCH worse then SONY 28-135/4.Olympus ZD 14-42 is worse then Olympus ZD 12-60.Tamron 70-300 USD is somewhat worse then Tamron 16-300.Sigma 50-100 beats hands down Canon 85/1.8, Canon 200/1.8. Sony 85/1.8 (2x zoom vs primes!)These are all lenses I have used and I have personal experience with (at least on my father's camera as with Nikon 16-80). And all pairs are from the same age, of course it is stupid to compare lenses that have a huge technological gap between them. I can EXPLAIN every pair to you if you want. Too many exceptions to see your statement as a rule, at least for my taste. Of course there are even MORE examples where the longer zoom range lenses are worse then the shorter ones, yes, more. But to call something a rule you must be sure that it is true at least for 99 cases out of 100. We cannot talk about such percentage here, not even close, sorry...</blockquote>

Verification