Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7100
Is it possible to use an old school teleconverter?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="robbins.photo" data-source="post: 607551" data-attributes="member: 27043"><p>Back in the day "superzooms" were pretty awful. The first few versions of lenses that covered a wide variety of focal lengths.. well lets be honest, they stunk on ice. Also keep in mind that this was back before you could easily correct problems like say pincushion distortion using software, etc. So yes, superzooms did get a bad name.</p><p></p><p>In the digital era with the ability to easily correct some of these problems, plus some pretty huge leaps forward in lens design, superzooms are starting to get to the point where they don't completely suck anymore - however the vast majority of them are still no match for a professional grade zoom lens of a much shorter focal length.</p><p></p><p>So yes, a lot of us "camera guys" are not big fans of the superzoom. They have improved in quality quite a bit, but even stopped down to F/8 your 18-270 can't match the sharpness and clarity achieved by my 70-200mm 2.8 shot wide open at 2.8. You don't have to pixel peep to see the differences, especially when your shooting things like critters with lots of tiny details.</p><p></p><p>The superzoom does have the advantage of convenience, but you are sacrificing image quality. For many of us that sort of defeats the purpose of paying the money for having a camera with an interchangeable lens system to begin with. I'd much rather carry two lenses with great IQ than one lens with so-so IQ.</p><p></p><p>But some folks feel differently, nothing wrong with that. As long as your happy with the results your getting with your equipment, that's all that matters.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="robbins.photo, post: 607551, member: 27043"] Back in the day "superzooms" were pretty awful. The first few versions of lenses that covered a wide variety of focal lengths.. well lets be honest, they stunk on ice. Also keep in mind that this was back before you could easily correct problems like say pincushion distortion using software, etc. So yes, superzooms did get a bad name. In the digital era with the ability to easily correct some of these problems, plus some pretty huge leaps forward in lens design, superzooms are starting to get to the point where they don't completely suck anymore - however the vast majority of them are still no match for a professional grade zoom lens of a much shorter focal length. So yes, a lot of us "camera guys" are not big fans of the superzoom. They have improved in quality quite a bit, but even stopped down to F/8 your 18-270 can't match the sharpness and clarity achieved by my 70-200mm 2.8 shot wide open at 2.8. You don't have to pixel peep to see the differences, especially when your shooting things like critters with lots of tiny details. The superzoom does have the advantage of convenience, but you are sacrificing image quality. For many of us that sort of defeats the purpose of paying the money for having a camera with an interchangeable lens system to begin with. I'd much rather carry two lenses with great IQ than one lens with so-so IQ. But some folks feel differently, nothing wrong with that. As long as your happy with the results your getting with your equipment, that's all that matters. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7100
Is it possible to use an old school teleconverter?
Top