[Rover]

I guess it's partially down to the fact that the said 28-300L was one of the (very) few high-end superzooms up until late, the rest are/were mostly low-end consumer fare anyway. I remember the Sigma 28-300 I've had to use back in the days of yore on Nikon D70; it was really pretty lousy all around. The Nikon 28-300 couldn't really hold a candle to the Canon either.

Now, if I buy a Nikon lens, I'd probably go for their 24-120, not 24-240. Although the Canon 24-85 looks pretty good even on Z9 so far - a lot better than it has any right to look if only the price tag and the lens's provenance are taken into account.

[toni-a]

My experience with superzoom was rather bad: Tamron 24-200: desintegrated.
Tokina 24-200 built like a tank however I think it's one of the worst autofocus lenses even made: no sharpness to talk about, I would say color soup however for color soup you need colors, none of them here. it has one of the worst flare performances with almost all the time washed out colors.
Third experience short lived with Tamron 28-300: it's surely not 300mm at the long end, closer to 200 actually with disastrous autofocus peformance on DSLRs

[Rover]

Well, the film era kit lenses and superzooms were probably all dross in the end. Though the 24-85 class lenses from every manufacturer were probably a notch better; the only bad thing I can say about my Canon now is that the build quality still leaves me in fear for it's longevity. And finding a hood for it is a fool's errand now, if I would have to nitpick. (Lack of IS, which was one of my gripes before, doesn't matter anymore with IBIS).

[toni-a]

Let's keep in mind that film in today's standard is rather low resolution, plenty of lenses struggling on high resolution cameras used to shine pretty well when 10-20 MP was the norm, those lenses surely were great on film

[Rover]

I don't think any of them really were "great"; "acceptable" is more like it. Remember, technology has also progressed and keeps doing so; inexpensive mass-produced aspherical elements were probably what turned around the low-end market somewhere/sometime between the (lousy) Canon 18-55 non-IS kit lens and the (excellent) 18-55 IS kit lens. :-)

[Klaus]

The 17-70mm is pretty big now that I'm holding it in person.

I'm a bit skeptical about whether such a lens makes much sense.

On equal grounds, there isn't much in it when compared to FF 24-105 lenses:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#831.955,883.681,899.788,ha,t

[thxbb12]

The 17-70mm is pretty big now that I'm holding it in person.

I'm a bit skeptical about whether such a lens makes much sense.

On equal grounds, there isn't much in it when compared to FF 24-105 lenses:
https://camerasize.com/compact/#831.955,883.681,899.788,ha,t

Yes, that's why the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC DN makes a lot more sense. The range is shorter but it's very compact and supposed to be very good optically with smoother rendering than the Tamron:

https://bit.ly/3gZVcfN

[Klaus]

Yes, the 18-50mm is also "on the list".

[Rover]

The two lenses still untested in E-mount that have my interest are the Tamron 35-150 and 50-400. Probably rare beasts though as they are very new.

[Klaus]

The 35-150mm is way too exotic in my book.
The 50-400mm maybe ... in X-mount.