Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are Hyperzooms That Bad?  
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1646 times:

I was looking back at some old posts, and Hyperzooms seem to have a pretty bad reputation.

I recently bought a Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 ASP Hyperzoom, and have been using it exclusively (on aviation shots anyway) for the past 2 months. Here are some of the pics I've taken with it.

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Charles Falk



I know that definition is hard to judge in this format, but I can't really see any difference between these pics (and their originals) and what I used to get with my 100-300mm and 28-105mm lenses. Can anyone see a difference, or am I missing something?

So is the bad reputation of Hyperzooms a predjudice that belongs in the past?

Charles


8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1017 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1558 times:

Charles,

In my opinion, not all of these lenses are really bad, and the ones that are not so good are only bad when you try to push the envelope. You've said recently that you try to stop down to F8 most of the time, and I suspect that helps a lot. There's very few lenses that are that really bad when stopped down. Where quality (or lack of it) shows is when you're trying to use a lens at its widest aperture, and also at its longest or shortest zooms at the same time.

Looking at those pictures you've selected, three are in bright sunshine so I'd guess you're stopped down a bit. None of them look like you're stretching the 300mm end of the lens, or the 28mm end either.

I'd suggest you shoot some stuff on a dull day with the lens wide open at maximum and minimum focal lengths and make some judgements based on those results. Having said that, technology moves on all the time and all you need to do is think back 20 years and consider all the folks who condemned ANY sort of zoom, so these lenses are bound to be getting better as time moves on.

Andy


User currently offlineDa fwog From United Kingdom, joined Aug 1999, 867 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1520 times:

The hyperzooms are very useful to have on the front of your camera for a catch-all, and the quality is comparable to what you'll get from carrying around a budget 70-210 or 70-300 and 28-80 (or 28-105 as you say). You will usually find that at the 300mm end it will be noticeably slower than a 70-300 (maybe 2/3 stop to a stop), and the quality usually degrades quite sharply once you pass the well-used 200/210mm range.

I would say that for most people for most circumstances, a hyperzoom will do almost as well as separate short and long zooms - the quality of the optics is similar. But there are also some really pretty good medium-range zooms (Nikkor & Canon 80-200/70-210 F4-5.6) that will produce better results for less money. I bought a secondhand Nikkor 80-200 F4-5.6 for £99 and it blows every other similar zoom I've ever had out of the water, including the Sigma 70-300 Super Apo Macro which was £300.

Doesn't get even close to the 70-200F2.8 though! Big grin

Chris.


User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 41
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

I am still waiting for Canon to come out with a 14mm-1200mm zoom lens  Smile
Mark G


User currently offlineAirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

Lofty goal Mark! I'll settle for a fast 18-300, smaller than a beer can, and costs less than a compact car!


Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 41
Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1518 times:

How 'bout an 18-300 2.8, not just smaller than a beer can, but actually a beer can. You can take pictures then drink from it.... Smile

User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 46
Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Mark,

Good laugh on a Friday evening. Let me know when Canon will come out with that lense, maybe then Nikon can be convinced to do the same thing, I would settle with a 14mm-1000mm zoom, that would do it for me.....

Vasco


User currently offlineN949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1504 times:

Mmmmm............given the fact that Canon's current EF 1200mm f/5.6 already cost well over US$130K (custom orders only), I wonder how shocking will the price tag be if they ever come out with a 14-1000mm like you guys fantasize about!!  Wow!

'949


User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (13 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1489 times:

Maybe I will give that Pentax 28-200 a chance...


-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bad Contrast Or Are My Eyes That Bad? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 18:04:15 by Avro85
Are My Photos That Bad, C&C Please posted Sun Jul 23 2006 18:56:05 by Golftango
Are These Really That Bad? posted Fri Aug 12 2005 15:47:02 by Madjones
Are These Shots Bad Quality? posted Sun Jun 12 2005 23:14:10 by FightingDingo
Low Esthetic Quality - Is It That Bad? posted Thu Jun 2 2005 15:34:17 by LeonB1985
Is This Really That Bad? Rejection posted Sun Jan 18 2004 20:39:57 by Fiveholer
Honest Criticism; Is It Really That Bad? posted Thu Sep 25 2003 00:55:33 by Futterman
What About Front Shots? Are They So Bad? posted Wed Feb 14 2001 15:39:56 by Lewis
Are This Pictures Really Bad Quality? posted Tue Nov 28 2006 04:27:29 by XAAPB
Do You Know That Your Photos Are Used There? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 19:55:18 by PUnmuth@VIE