Opticallimits
Time for a new review I reckon .... - Printable Version

+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Time for a new review I reckon .... (/showthread.php?tid=5398)

Pages: 1 2 3


Time for a new review I reckon .... - Klaus - 12-04-2022

... 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


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - Rover - 12-05-2022

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. :-)


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - Klaus - 12-05-2022

> 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.


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - Rover - 12-05-2022

I guess it's still not lensbaby level of (technical) suck, and I'd still be interested in a review. Smile 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. Smile


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - Klaus - 12-05-2022

The Tamron 28-200mm seems to be pretty good though.


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - thxbb12 - 12-05-2022

As far as the "best" of the bunch, my money is on the Nikkor Z 24-200.


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - Rover - 12-05-2022

Right -- I forgot about the Tamron. I don't remember if it was tested here?..... probably not.


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - mst - 12-05-2022

(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.


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - Rover - 12-05-2022

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. Smile

I'm afraid we'll keep getting some of the former no matter the price bracket...


RE: Time for a new review I reckon .... - toni-a - 12-05-2022

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