Hyperzooms - any good?

[Tim]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am looking to buy a lens or two for my D70 (I currently just own the
body). I need to cover the focal length 28-300 (give or take a bit).

My options based on research I have done, and the budget I have are:

A) Nikon 18-70mm AF-S DX (the kit lens for the D70)
AND
Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro II

or

B) Sigma 28-300mm

So the choice is between a set of two lenses or a so-called hyperzoom.
I figure the quality is not so good with the hyperzoom, but there is
the issue of not having to change lenses (ergo less dust and less time
to switch over).

I'd appreciate your thoughts on my two options.

(And BTW, what is it with all the weird and random posting in this
group recently? I mean who CARES who you favourite basketball player
is, or indeed who stole who's photos).

T

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In general, the shorter the zoom ratio the better the optics can be,
the lower the distortion will be, and the faster the optics can be. The
vast majority of shooters will be better off with two zooms of 3X each
than with one zoom of 9X (or 10X).

The advantage of the hyperzoom is convienience at the cost of
sharpness, distortion, chromatic aberation,...

Mitch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1107534910.292496.72840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim" <timpharrison@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am looking to buy a lens or two for my D70 (I currently just own the
> body). I need to cover the focal length 28-300 (give or take a bit).
>
> My options based on research I have done, and the budget I have are:
>
> A) Nikon 18-70mm AF-S DX (the kit lens for the D70)
> AND
> Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro II
>
> or
>
> B) Sigma 28-300mm
>
> So the choice is between a set of two lenses or a so-called hyperzoom.
> I figure the quality is not so good with the hyperzoom, but there is
> the issue of not having to change lenses (ergo less dust and less time
> to switch over).
>
> I'd appreciate your thoughts on my two options.

Lens switching in setup A might not be all that bad. I can only see it
as a problem if you were photographing outdoor events and wanted to
alternate between wide angle crowd photos and close-up face photos.

Setup B could be a real turn-off to photography. If a photo is bad
because you're not a good photographer, you try again to do better.
When a photo is bad because you equipment ruined it, you give up.


> (And BTW, what is it with all the weird and random posting in this
> group recently? I mean who CARES who you favourite basketball player
> is, or indeed who stole who's photos).
>
> T

Random hit'n'run spams through Google. Some are commercial while some
are plain trolling. I don't know why this group is hit so much. The
problem should improve soon. If Google doesn't tighten up security,
major news carriers will dump their postings

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tim" <timpharrison@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107534910.292496.72840@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am looking to buy a lens or two for my D70 (I currently just own the
> body). I need to cover the focal length 28-300 (give or take a bit).

Before or after crop?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 16:35:10 +0000, Tim wrote:

> I am looking to buy a lens or two for my D70 (I currently just own the
> body). I need to cover the focal length 28-300 (give or take a bit).
>
> My options based on research I have done, and the budget I have are:
>
> A) Nikon 18-70mm AF-S DX (the kit lens for the D70)
> AND
> Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro II
>
> or
>
> B) Sigma 28-300mm
>
> So the choice is between a set of two lenses or a so-called hyperzoom. I
> figure the quality is not so good with the hyperzoom, but there is the
> issue of not having to change lenses (ergo less dust and less time to
> switch over).
>
> I'd appreciate your thoughts on my two options.
>
I have used both the Sigma lenses (with both film & digital cams). Both
are good but the hyperzoom is a bit soft at the edges with open aperture,
specially at the wide angle end. It of course depends on how critical the
definition of your pictures need to be. The hyperzoom is OK for walk
around shooting but if the images are for any critical use, specially if
you need to take them in low light (i.e. open aperture), then it is
probably not adequate. On a digital camera (with 1.6 ratio) the effective
zoom range would be equivalent to 45-480mm for a film camera. May not be
adequate for the wide end, as I discovered.

In the APO macro lens, macro works only at 300mm; otherwise it is a pretty
good lens.

--

Gautam Majumdar

Please send e-mails to gmajumdar@freeuk.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gautam Majumdar <gmajumdar@XSPAMfreeuk.com> wrote in
news:3IQMd.6415$B8.6234@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

ANY zoom is a compromise. At any given focal length, you'll get the most
optimized performance from a prime lens.

That said, zooms offer obvious utility, and lensmakers have gotten far
better at making the compromises necessary to make the same lens work at
different focal lengths. But as a general rule, it is still true that a
zoom with a narrow min-max range has to make fewer compromises than a
zoom with a wide min-max range.

And consider - do you really want to lug a 300mm lens around with you
when you're shooting everything at 35-50mm?

I'm personally fond of using primes. My 35mm every day kit is a 20mm, a
50mm, and a 100mm. The rest of the lenses (especially the big teles) stay
in the truck or back at home unles I know I'm going to need them. The
zooms I have used were in the 35-70 range.

I think most zoom users would be far better off with two zooms - a fast
wide to short tele (35mm equivalent of 35-70 or so) and a tele zoom
(maybe the equivalent of a 200-400mm or so).

Its also worth considering that since you're talking digital, you can
always shoot a little wide and then crop in photoshop.

Hope that helped,

BBB