It really depends on your expectations. I've been using the SMC-P FA
28-200mm on the D and Ds and it makes a fine lightweight, if not
particularly compact event lens. I wasn't happy with it on film, it was
a bit soft in the corners and edges at the long end and suffered from
noticeable barrel distortion at the short end, but it seems to out
resolve the 6mp sensors, and most of the problems areas are cropped
out. I don't have any experience with super zooms aimed specially at
DSLRs but I would expect that you'd have to be willing to put up with
some loss of image quality to gain the convenience. Now the interesting
thing about the 28-200 is that a couple of friends of mine have ZLR
cameras who's built in lenses cover exactly the same range as the
28-200mm, (AOV ~42-300 in 35mm terms), does on a DSLR. I'm not sure why
that should be.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>Superzoom = wide focal range. OK, thanks. I heard the term mentioned once
>and thought it meant something else. Now, what's "VR?"
>
>Overall and generally speaking, how do these "superzooms" compare to zooms
>with a lesser focal range? Do they measure up to even those standards?
>
>Shel
>
>
>
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: Adam Maas
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Superzooms. The Sigma and Tamron 18-200's,
>>and the Nikkor, which is significantly better optically,
>>1/2 stop faster at the long end and
>>3-4x the price (Although much of the price difference
>> is in the VR)
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What class is that - wide focal range zooms (what else is in that
>>>
>>>
>class?),
>
>
>>>price range, quality range? What lenses are in those classes?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>>[Original Message]
>>>>From: Amita Guha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If he goes with Nikon, he also has the option of the
>>>>18-200mm, which is supposed to be superb for its class.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
