The superzoom lens is a relatively new addition that photographers can make to their arsenal. Despite the fact that it was initially mocked, many photographers are beginning to recognize its value as an excellent all-around option.
When I clicked on this video, I did so in an effort to listen to anything that was not coming from within my own personal echo chamber. For as far as I can remember, superzoom lenses have never piqued my curiosity or garnered my affection in any way.
Before they were possible to the extent that they are now, the option that came the closest was a nearly-wide lens at its widest point and a mid-range telephoto lens when it was zoomed in as far as it could go. These lenses were frequently referred to as walkaround lenses (at least in some of the communities that I was a part of), which are lenses that you can throw on your camera when you’re going out for the day and that cover the majority of what you’d need coverage-wise.
I gave them a few different shots, and at one point I even owned one (or two?), but they just weren’t cutting it for me. In general, I was dissatisfied with the results, and in almost every circumstance that didn’t require me to switch from 35mm to 150mm in less than ten seconds, they seemed like the half-measure that Mike Ehrmantraut warned us not to use.
Well, now that we have “superzoom” lenses, this brand of the lens has been taken to a new level of absurdity; may I direct your attention to the Tamron 18-400mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD, which is just plain ridiculous? The main selling point is, of course, its versatility, which includes not only the range of subject matter that can be captured but also the option to bring along a select few lenses. However, is it really worth it? The Northrup’s, Tony and Chelsea, are of the opinion that this is the case; what do you think?
