I really should know better or what aspect of lousy lens quality is least of a problem?

[ancient_mariner]

Also known as 'thank goodness you can send a used lens back'.

I have a love-hate affair with superzooms, generally loving the idea right up until I actually use one. my very first was a Vivitar 28-200 for a Pentax film camera, and even at 6X4 enprint size it was garbage. I've owned a few since, ranging in quality from 'OK at viewing distance' to 'piece of junk'. I'm not a lens snob (honest guv) have have posted images here for crit, plus printed some of the results to 30" X 20" using sigma 18-250 and 28-200 lenses. Now we're off to Israel in a couple of months, and it would be really useful to have something I can slap on the (FX) camera & just tote around for almost everything. I already have a Sigma that is usable, but with soft edges & soft all over at 200mm, and wanted something better - reading the odd review and looking at pictures on Flickr suggested the Nikon 28-200 was actually pretty decent for the type, so found a well priced used one and it arrived this morning.

Lunchtime test shots - a combination of painted fence panels from 10 feet and then walkabout shots suggest I have acquired something with an unusual distribution of flaws. The centre of the image is tolerably sharp between f8 and f16 at all focal lengths, but go more than halfway to the edge and we're into Holga territory at any aperture. While my other superzooms pretty much all flare terribly this one does not, yet it shows low contrast all over the image and the most impressive CA that I think I've ever seen. Distortion is also quite extreme and a very odd shape. I can see the softness and CA at normal screen size on a 20" monitor, so that doesn't bode well for more demanding use - it's sufficiently bad that if one stops down at 28mm looking for good depth of field, the edge performance makes it look like a larger aperture has been selected.

Sadly my quest for the holy grail of lens do-everything performance continues.

 

[jakeblu]

I think the Fuji 18-135 is supposed to be a decent lens, but maybe you wouldn't classify that as a superzoom, oh and of course you don't shoot with a Fuji

 

[ancient_mariner]

I think the Fuji 18-135 is supposed to be a decent lens, but maybe you wouldn't classify that as a superzoom, oh and of course you don't shoot with a Fuji

That's 28-200 equivalent, but you're correct about Fuji. The nearest I have that's a great all-rounder is a Sony/Zeiss 16-80 = 24-120 equivalent, and it's pretty close to prime lens quality, but I wanted to take the Nikon outfit for the better dynamic range, reduced haloing and greater depth to the images.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

I have a love-hate affair with superzoom…my quest for the holy grail of lens do-everything performance continues.

Tony, I found mine but it is not in the same range.

Three years ago, I got myself the Nikkor 200~400 ƒ4.
It is a dream come true.

The darker side of it is that it out of reach for most as
all its prowesses come with quite a salty price tag…
acceptable if it is a tool for the trade but for traveling,
I don't think so.

Good luck in your quest!

 

[Nod]

You'll lose the long end but the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 will tick the other boxes. Not a cheap option, unfortunately but quality rarely is cheap!

 

[Ed Sutton]

Nikon walkabouts - 24-85 (light weight) or 28-300 (not so light).

Drawback - curved horizons if they're not in the middle of the frame.

 

[ancient_mariner]

You'll lose the long end but the Nikkor 24-120 f/4 will tick the other boxes. Not a cheap option, unfortunately but quality rarely is cheap!

I did look into the 24-120 f4 (and the earlier 3.5-5.6) but it didn't strike me as *good enough for the money*, even second hand.

Nikon walkabouts - 24-85 (light weight) or 28-300 (not so light).

Drawback - curved horizons if they're not in the middle of the frame.

The one I'd buy if it were affordable is the 24-70 f2.8. I have a 28-85 3.5-4.5 and quality is tolerable, and it's this lens that I hoped the 28-200 would replicate. I think a used 28-300 went on here recently in the classifieds for some crazy amount of money.

Probably most - may be all - of my photos don't need anything like this level of lens quality, but I hate that feeling of going to take pictures when you think the kit will let you down. I want to be completely confident with what I use so that I don't think about how badly it will work & can concentrate on just taking the picture.