BoatBanter.com - View Single Post - For those heartbroken 18-200 mm lenses buyers...

jps

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

In article ,
says...
You wrote:

Where's the sweet spot for that lens

The trash can.

Seriously, I've got a half-ton of Nikon glass (20D, 24D, 28, 35, 50,
105MicroD, 28-80D, 80-200D), but something that advertises itself as
covering that much real estate is a JOKE.

The whole point of the lens is giving the photographer the option of
carrying a single piece of glass.

When needing two vastly different focal lengths and the ability to quickly
switch between them, the photographer carries two bodies, each with an
appropriate lens.

"The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my
mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases
for the purpose at hand.

What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by.

If you care so little about the quality of your pictures that you'd buy an
18-200 lens, you're not a photographer at all, you're a gadgethound with
money to burn who'd be better served with an A540.

While traveling light, I like having something that I can use to frame
an image easily rather than be fiddling with a bunch of bodies/lenses.
I've owned point and shoot digital and I don't like them. I like the
SLR body and have no problem making pretty amazing images with the
crappy zoom $200 28-200 zoom.

What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience?

If you want convenience instead of quality, use a 110 Instamatic.

What an idiotic statement. I'm sure there's plenty of pinhole
photographers who can make your efforts look like amateur snapshots.

I've owned everything from a 120 box camera, host of Nikon and Canon
35mm, several Rollei TLRs to a Hasselblad with thousands of dollars in
glass in front of it.

I've made brilliant and crappy images with each.

The best camera equipment no more makes a photographer than a fast car
makes a driver or a big boat makes a boater.

jps