New Superzoom Development? [CR1]

[LonelyBoy]

I used a friend's Nikon APS-C body recently and the variable aperture kit lens annoyed the crap out of me. I don't like using auto/semi-auto metering modes so definitely would only be interested in fixed maximum aperture lenses.

While most of my lenses are f/2.8 or faster, I'd be willing to trade in trade in one stop of ISO performance for the convenience of a zoom and if it's a static subject then there's always the latest generation of kickass IS to make up for the loss of light-gathering capability.

In terms of focal range, if I can live with the angle of view of the 24mm pancake on APS-C then I can easily live with 28mm on the wide end and I love 70-200mm for portraits and reasonably close-by subjects. Anything further away either gets treated as a snapshot (only for ID purposes) or needs a dedicated lens for it to be a keeper.

So summarizing, I'd say 28-200mm f/4 IS USM would be great walk-around lens from my perspective. I'd much rather have a brilliant 200/4 than a mediocre 300mm f/5.6.

Why not just set the aperture to 5.6 instead of 3.5, so it stays constant? I'd be intrigued by your 28-200/4 though. Better yet, 25-200/4.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I used a friend's Nikon APS-C body recently and the variable aperture kit lens annoyed the crap out of me. I don't like using auto/semi-auto metering modes so definitely would only be interested in fixed maximum aperture lenses.

While most of my lenses are f/2.8 or faster, I'd be willing to trade in trade in one stop of ISO performance for the convenience of a zoom and if it's a static subject then there's always the latest generation of kickass IS to make up for the loss of light-gathering capability.

In terms of focal range, if I can live with the angle of view of the 24mm pancake on APS-C then I can easily live with 28mm on the wide end and I love 70-200mm for portraits and reasonably close-by subjects. Anything further away either gets treated as a snapshot (only for ID purposes) or needs a dedicated lens for it to be a keeper.

So summarizing, I'd say 28-200mm f/4 IS USM would be great walk-around lens from my perspective. I'd much rather have a brilliant 200/4 than a mediocre 300mm f/5.6.

Why not just set the aperture to 5.6 instead of 3.5, so it stays constant? I'd be intrigued by your 28-200/4 though. Better yet, 25-200/4.

I was shooting with an older generation APS-C sensor and in dimly lit conditions was a huge disadvantage. Outdoors is fine to shoot f/5.6 but indoors when you can hardly get a usable image at ISO 1600 ... (who am I kidding none of those images were usable.) Also the flash was malfunctioning so I had to shoot ambient only. Brings me to tears :'( Anyway, I eventually just resigned myself to shoot at 18mm f/3.5 indoors.