ewhalen wrote:ralf wrote:ewhalen wrote:All it shows is that people are willing to cripple their SLRs with a junk lens because they are too lazy to change their lens.
Spoken like a true snob.... So tell me, who gets the better image: me with my "junk" zoom or you who misses the opportunity while changing between ultra-quality prime lenses? Both have their place.
I have two zooms, and three cameras....to go along with my primes....so I don't have to do much switching
And that's a lots of stuff to carry around or have slung about your neck!
It's been said so much it's cliche, "to each his own." If you have gobs of equipment and fancy lugging it around then that's your style. If, on the other hand, you prefer to have a superzoom on your SLR to "save from swapping lenses" that, too, is your prerogative.
Is it a fact that superzooms are crappy? Depends on who you ask and there lies the problem with subjective questions like "what's better" or "is this thing worth it" or "Nikon vs. Canon". We each have our own needs and requirements. Me personally, I don't mind carrying three lenses with my one camera. I'll change if necessary. (I worry more about dust and debris getting on my sensor.)
Goodness, it's even a question of cost. If one person can afford a mega-bucks ultra-prime 20lbs glass then, hey, go write that check. I buy the best glass I can afford to do the captures I want. (Personally, I'm in the market for a Nikkor zoom with VR...)
And for that, it's a cheap shot to call someone's equipment "junk". True, a particular lens may not be "top quality", but damn if I'm going to pay $6K for one that is. My wife would kill me.
Now, let's take some pictures!
Cheers,
Sean