Traditionally, professional photographers have shied away from superzoom lenses, as the sacrifices it took to create such a large focal length range were simply too great to make them viable for their demands. On the other hand, they might be worth a second look, especially if you are a landscape photographer. This great video essay discusses why a superzoom lens can often be the ideal choice.
Coming to you from Henry Turner, this interesting video essay discusses why superzoom lenses can be such a useful tool for landscape photography. Such lenses can be a real boon for several reasons. First, there is the tremendous savings in weight and bulk that comes with carrying a single lens instead of multiple options, which is particularly important in a genre that often requires you to hike multiple miles. Furthermore, because landscape photographers typically shoot at narrower apertures, the issues with sharpness and low-light abilities are less prominent. And newer superzoom designs feature much better image quality than those of even a decade ago, making them worth a second look. The best part, though, is that they are typically much cheaper than higher-level options. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Turner.
My Sigma 18-300 has served me well although I don’t use it much for landscape. Superzooms are great for casual travel photography. I also used it a lot during the worst early stages of the pandemic when I would stroll around town with it.
I have used and tested my 24-200 Nikon Z lens against my 70-200 f2.8 lens and I was impressed with the long, very light lens. I was particularly impressed with the performance in the wide angle range, low distortion and no evident color fringing. I tested with rather large resolution targets and found that the 70-200 lens had slightly better resolution (one step in the target) at the longer focal lengths, but the difference was not really noticeable, The 24-200 is on my z6 normally. I carry that lens and the 14-30 f4 with me when ever I travel.