David Savage wrote: > On 9/30/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Superzoom = wide focal range. OK, thanks. I heard the term mentioned once >> and thought it meant something else. Now, what's "VR?" > > "VIbration Reduction" Nikon's version of IS > >> Overall and generally speaking, how do these "superzooms" compare to zooms >> with a lesser focal range? Do they measure up to even those standards? > > Poorly > > Dave >
Actually, there's a couple good ones. The Canon 35-350L and 28-300 IS L are superb, but they're huge monsters of lenses (they're the size of a 300 f2.8, and cost similar amounts), the later versions of the Tamron 28-200 is decent as well. The Nikkor 18-200 VR is pretty good, and acquits itself well in comparison to most mid-range glass of shorter zoom ranges (it's quite comparable to a 18-70DX + 70-300ED kit, apart from the 200-300 range it doesn't cover). The Sigma and Tamron are kit zoom quality at best, and really horrid past 120mm or so. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
