... this week.
Coming to this theatre are also:
- Canon RF 24-240mm (to test some crap as well)
- Tamron 17-70mm
- Sigma 85mm f/1.4
Great!
I keep visiting a few times a day hoping for something to crop up. I admit the E mount reviews are suddenly starting to take on a measure of relevance for me. :-)
By the way... The Canon 24-240 is getting a way better reputation than its Sony doppelganger. :-)
> By the way... The Canon 24-240 is getting a way better reputation than its Sony doppelganger. :-)
Until .... ;-)
But yes, the Sony 24-240 is also a crap-o-mat.
I guess it's still not lensbaby level of (technical) suck, and I'd still be interested in a review.
As a newfangled Nikon user, I did entertain the idea of adding a native zoom lens for the case that the adapter breaks, and the local variety of 24-200 was under consideration a little. It would be interesting to see how all three doth compare.
The Tamron 28-200mm seems to be pretty good though.
As far as the "best" of the bunch, my money is on the Nikkor Z 24-200.
Right -- I forgot about the Tamron. I don't remember if it was tested here?..... probably not.
(12-05-2022, 09:16 AM)thxbb12 Wrote: [ -> ]As far as the "best" of the bunch, my money is on the Nikkor Z 24-200.
Maybe, but let's be realistic: they're likely all created following the same recipe: "let's keep it compact and affordable, so let's make some compromises. Let's not put effort in too much correction for example, that's why we have software, don't we?"
It feels like optical distortion correction is more and more seen as something the marketing can use to better sell the expensive stuff to those high-end glass connoisseurs. The consumer folks are not worth the effort, let's rather explain that software correction is the much better approach and the future anyway. Judging from comments we get to some reviews, that's what many do believe.
Yes but it can be done to different degrees, it's one thing to correct
some barrel distortion down from 3% and eliminate
some of the vignetting that amounted to 3 stops originally, and quite another is make a lens with black corners and 9% of barreling look decent.
I'm afraid we'll keep getting some of the former no matter the price bracket...
With superzooms you have the problem of having too many moving elements and that's not good for the long term......
Maybe one of them is better as brand new but after some heavy use, it will join back the others in at best average peformance.
To my knownledge Canon 28-300 was one of the rare exceptions, an exception because the design per se with push pull and few moving elements , and an exception because manufacturer predicted this and it has shims to readjust elements in regular intervals