Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lokatz" data-source="post: 644316" data-attributes="member: 43924">Snowcat,  Appreciate you thoughts.  Let's make this simple: I agree that it would be foolish to say that a wider zoom range inevitably means lower image quality than a smaller zoom range.Several aspects determine the IQ of a lens, zoom range being only one of them.  Materials, quality of the optical design, coatings, newness of the technology, and so on and so forth all have an impact.  That easily explains why a Nikon 16-80 is better than an 18-55 or the Tamron 16-300 than the 18-270, for example.  I realize I should have been clearer in my wording.  The rule that I postulate and find valid is that an AVERAGE lens with a smaller zoom range will have a higher IQ than an AVERAGE lens with a wider zoom range.  Yes, we can both find examples of superzooms that beat a relatively poor standard or tele lens, but you'd have a very hard time convincing me or others that the average superzoom is better than the average 24-70, 70-300, or whatever range you choose. or that the best superzoom beats the best lens within those ranges. That is for systematic reasons, which is the very argument I was trying to make.Quite honestly, I don't know what to make of your AF-P 10-20 rave, because while that lens is too new for me to have a complete picture, it got an average 4.5 stars out of 5 from the 37 reviewers on Amazon.com, so I find it unlikely that it is as obviously bad as you describe it.  37 is too many people to just assume none of them have any idea, so I assume you had a bad copy, which we both agree exists.  Taking that to say that "Nikon AF-P 10-20 is MUCH worse then Sigma 18-300", as evidence that the general underlying rule does not apply, takes things way too far for me.Hope with my augmented definition of the rule we may find it easier to put this to rest.</blockquote>

Verification