Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wrboyle" data-source="post: 213732" data-attributes="member: 17594">I like the range and general idea of the 24-120, but I get nervous after reading some reviews.&nbsp; I honestly think there should be a new lens rating system.&nbsp; As opposed to 5 stars or whatever the site uses, it should be rated based on user type and usage.&nbsp; That is, for each lens, they should indicate the type of user within a specific type of use that would be required to notice its shortcomings.&nbsp; In other words, how good of a photographer do you have to be before you notice the shortcomings of a lens.&nbsp; If you never take your camera off of auto and you do in camera jpeg conversion and you are just shooting a preschool soccer game in good light, you probably won't notice the short comings of a cheap 55-200 lens.&nbsp; Similarly, if you shoot fully manual and do raw conversion in Lightroom and are shooting high speed action, you are going to hate one of the cheap 55-200s.&nbsp; For me (more a techonphile who likes photography than a photographer), I'm generally in aperture/shutter priority (though I drift into manual on occasion) and shoot raw and work in lightroom and my use (for this lens) is &quot;general&quot; photography (probably outdoors in good light).&nbsp; I know a pro shooting a wedding would probably find the 24-120 to have serious flaws, but I wonder how much someone like me would actually notice it...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wrboyle, post: 213732, member: 17594"] I like the range and general idea of the 24-120, but I get nervous after reading some reviews. I honestly think there should be a new lens rating system. As opposed to 5 stars or whatever the site uses, it should be rated based on user type and usage. That is, for each lens, they should indicate the type of user within a specific type of use that would be required to notice its shortcomings. In other words, how good of a photographer do you have to be before you notice the shortcomings of a lens. If you never take your camera off of auto and you do in camera jpeg conversion and you are just shooting a preschool soccer game in good light, you probably won't notice the short comings of a cheap 55-200 lens. Similarly, if you shoot fully manual and do raw conversion in Lightroom and are shooting high speed action, you are going to hate one of the cheap 55-200s. For me (more a techonphile who likes photography than a photographer), I'm generally in aperture/shutter priority (though I drift into manual on occasion) and shoot raw and work in lightroom and my use (for this lens) is "general" photography (probably outdoors in good light). I know a pro shooting a wedding would probably find the 24-120 to have serious flaws, but I wonder how much someone like me would actually notice it... [/QUOTE]

Verification