cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Thu Mar 08, 2001 3:32 am

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
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
AndyEastMids
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:24 pm

RE: Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Thu Mar 08, 2001 5:52 am

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
 
da Fwog
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 1999 5:25 am

RE: Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Sat Mar 10, 2001 10:26 am

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.
 
tappan
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 1999 9:30 pm

RE: Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Sat Mar 10, 2001 11:30 am

I am still waiting for Canon to come out with a 14mm-1200mm zoom lens  Smile
Mark G
 
AirNikon
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 11:31 am

RE: Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Sat Mar 10, 2001 12:01 pm

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...
 
tappan
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 1999 9:30 pm

RE: Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Sat Mar 10, 2001 12:25 pm

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
 
ake0404ar
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 10:55 am

RE: Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Sat Mar 10, 2001 12:26 pm

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
 
n949wp
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2000 3:45 pm

RE: Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Sat Mar 10, 2001 3:24 pm

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
 
USAir_757
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2000 12:30 am

RE: Are Hyperzooms That Bad?

Sat Mar 10, 2001 11:27 pm

Maybe I will give that Pentax 28-200 a chance...
-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests