[Rondec]

In-camera corrections are part of the optical make-up of modern lenses, especially on mirrorless where they can't be used on anything that couldn't apply them (like a film SLR). They're the price we pay for superior optics, smaller size, lighter weight and reduced cost and it's certainly one I'm willing to pay. I couldn't care less if they can't be turned off because I'd never do so and can't think of any situation in which anyone would want to.

I think you are using the word "superior" fairly loosely. If you could apply sharpening, and vignette control, and distortion control in camera to a FA 50 f1.4 and on an Imatest image it tested similarly to a DFA *50 f1.4, it wouldn't really mean that the two were the same.

In point of fact, when your camera has already applied 2 EVs of vignette control to your image before you ever open it in Lightroom, you will have way more noise and less dynamic range in those parts of the image than with a lens that doesn't require such correction out of the box. There isn't a free lunch, but as long as people don't know about these things, I guess they are OK with them.

[UncleVanya]

I think you are using the word "superior" fairly loosely. If you could apply sharpening, and vignette control, and distortion control in camera to a FA 50 f1.4 and on an Imatest image it tested similarly to a DFA *50 f1.4, it wouldn't really mean that the two were the same.

In point of fact, when your camera has already applied 2 EVs of vignette control to your image before you ever open it in Lightroom, you will have way more noise and less dynamic range in those parts of the image than with a lens that doesn't require such correction out of the box. There isn't a free lunch, but as long as people don't know about these things, I guess they are OK with them.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Heavily corrected lenses can be a problem in certain situations. And subtle changes in image look and feel can render images sterile and flat. But there are lenses that have more moderate corrections that produce excellent images that show very few problems in post.

[reh321]

I think you are using the word "superior" fairly loosely. If you could apply sharpening, and vignette control, and distortion control in camera to a FA 50 f1.4 and on an Imatest image it tested similarly to a DFA *50 f1.4, it wouldn't really mean that the two were the same.

I am mostly concerned about the center of the image and have little interest in the edges {where vignette would occur}.

[Rondec]

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Heavily corrected lenses can be a problem in certain situations. And subtle changes in image look and feel can render images sterile and flat. But there are lenses that have more moderate corrections that produce excellent images that show very few problems in post.

I don't think it is an all or nothing thing. I guess I just feel a little peeved when people act like the "super zoom problem has been solved." It is as though an 18-300 lens can now produce similar images to a decent prime (other than the aperture), simply because the camera applies some algorithms to it behind the scenes.

Having shot with the DFA *50 and 85, they are far from sterile and flat. They certainly do produce nice images, even wide open, that I couldn't get with a super zoom.

the whole reason for brands to do these corrections behind the scenes, though, is to make their lenses look better versus the competition. For me, it is enough that Lightroom offers one click fixing of most of this stuff in post, if I want to fix it.

[UncleVanya]

I don't think it is an all or nothing thing. I guess I just feel a little peeved when people act like the "super zoom problem has been solved." It is as though an 18-300 lens can now produce similar images to a decent prime (other than the aperture), simply because the camera applies some algorithms to it behind the scenes.

Having shot with the DFA *50 and 85, they are far from sterile and flat. They certainly do produce nice images, even wide open, that I couldn't get with a super zoom.

the whole reason for brands to do these corrections behind the scenes, though, is to make their lenses look better versus the competition. For me, it is enough that Lightroom offers one click fixing of most of this stuff in post, if I want to fix it.

We are largely in agreement.

[Jonathan Mac]

I think you are using the word "superior" fairly loosely. If you could apply sharpening, and vignette control, and distortion control in camera to a FA 50 f1.4 and on an Imatest image it tested similarly to a DFA *50 f1.4, it wouldn't really mean that the two were the same.

In point of fact, when your camera has already applied 2 EVs of vignette control to your image before you ever open it in Lightroom, you will have way more noise and less dynamic range in those parts of the image than with a lens that doesn't require such correction out of the box. There isn't a free lunch, but as long as people don't know about these things, I guess they are OK with them.

I fully understand that not all of what's being applied in-camera is the same as designing a better lens. Vignetting is the worst example as it's boosting the shadows and that will have an impact on what else you can do with the image in post before that pushing noticeably degrades image quality. Any sharpening must be kept to a minimum or over-sharpened images would be very obvious and to my knowledge this isn't a problem. Controlling distortion is the biggie when it comes to reducing lens size and has minimal impact on image quality.

If manufacturers were producing optically rubbish lenses and baking the hell out of them to bring the images up to spec then it would be very obvious. Pentax itself has fallen foul of this, though in that case it's the baked-in noise reduction in the K-1 II and some others, which many people have found objectionable.

You need to bear in mind that modern lenses also have more complex optical formulae involving types of elements that were rarely or never used in older designs and, regardless of in-camera digital corrections, are generally better. Coatings have improved too. So I'm not really using "superior" loosely, I believe that lens manufacturing has improved greatly, especially in the last ten to twenty years, and in-camera corrections work in conjunction with that, but the big advances have been in the optics (and getting people to accept larger and possibly heavier lenses when previously demand for smaller ones was predominant).

[Rondec]

I fully understand that not all of what's being applied in-camera is the same as designing a better lens. Vignetting is the worst example as it's boosting the shadows and that will have an impact on what else you can do with the image in post before that pushing noticeably degrades image quality. Any sharpening must be kept to a minimum or over-sharpened images would be very obvious and to my knowledge this isn't a problem. Controlling distortion is the biggie when it comes to reducing lens size and has minimal impact on image quality.

If manufacturers were producing optically rubbish lenses and baking the hell out of them to bring the images up to spec then it would be very obvious. Pentax itself has fallen foul of this, though in that case it's the baked-in noise reduction in the K-1 II and some others, which many people have found objectionable.

You need to bear in mind that modern lenses also have more complex optical formulae involving types of elements that were rarely or never used in older designs and, regardless of in-camera digital corrections, are generally better. Coatings have improved too. So I'm not really using "superior" loosely, I believe that lens manufacturing has improved greatly, especially in the last ten to twenty years, and in-camera corrections work in conjunction with that, but the big advances have been in the optics (and getting people to accept larger and possibly heavier lenses when previously demand for smaller ones was predominant).

Lens design is somewhat better, but I don't know that there have been miracles achieved in the last 10 years. Computer aided lens design has been around for quite a while and it isn't as though lenses like Sigma's 18-35 f1.8 are brand new -- that one came out 10 years ago. Super telephotos have been around for a long time too and while they have probably improved a little, the big thing is baking the RAWs.

If distortion is moderate, 4 percent or less, then you should be able to fix it without too much problem. For non-architecture images, it isn't that big a deal anyway. People don't tend to notice distortion in nature images -- nor in images of people as long as you don't put them at the edges of the frame.

You shoot with plenty of older lenses and you know that many of them are very nice and produce very pleasing images, even if they don't have auto correction in camera. I have tried super zooms and have not been happy with the results, even if the distortion and vignetting weren't too bad.

[Jonathan Mac]

I have always avoided super-zooms because I prefer primes anyway and value speed and IQ over flexibility in focal range, but I have enjoyed the 16-85mm and something with even more range could be handy. I'm sure they have improved over the years, but so has everything else, so super-zooms will still be weak when compared to new primes or zooms with less range. That doesn't mean they won't produce acceptable results though.

Still, I'd be surprised to see any new ones for the K-mount, either APS-C or FF.

[UncleVanya]

The e Mount Tamron 28-200 is quite good but not prime good. And the aperture range is 5.6 at the long end. The Sony 24-240 is not even close to that level of iq. The 24-105 Sony is also quite good but again not prime good. While not a huge database the DXO data about the sharpness of various e mount lenses shows that the zooms aren’t nearly as sharp but they are far sharper than they used to be with these extended ranges.

I personally own the 24-105 and have shot it quite a bit. I’m not dissatisfied with it. However it is f4 and thus has limits that primes or shorter ranges zooms can easily exceed.

[thibs]

Let's not get in a situation where APS is for people how don't care about quality and FF is only for DFA* guys.
Superzoom are useful for FF guys too. Just rebadge a Tammy or get us an OK DFA 28-200 (more mm is better of course).
It's good enough.

I too prefer primes but with two little kids, I just can't most of the time.

[reh321]

I too prefer primes but with two little kids, I just can't most of the time.

I don’t see the connection between ‘little kids’ and prime lenses. When ours were young, I managed somehow with ‘just’ a 50mm lens. I didn’t sit in one spot with my camera and a zoom lens; they forced me to be active with them.

Only when our younger one became active in team sports did I stay on the sidelines with a zoom lens - then a 55-300mm lens became appropriate.

[Jonathan Mac]

I need a good zoom when travelling now that I have small kids, because I can't stop to change lenses all the time, whereas previously I'd have used primes a lot more (and largely manual ones at that). But for everyday stuff of the kids it's primes all the way because they're smaller and allow me faster shutter speeds. Certainly I'd never use a super-zoom for kid photos.

[James O'Neill]

I need a good zoom when travelling now that I have small kids, because I can't stop to change lenses all the time, whereas previously I'd have used primes a lot more (and largely manual ones at that). But for everyday stuff of the kids it's primes all the way because they're smaller and allow me faster shutter speeds. Certainly I'd never use a super-zoom for kid photos.

The changing lenses all the time was why I got a super zoom, it's a much better proposition for travel and when I had 3 zooms I was always switching between them. The superzoom works for grabbed shots of the family, but if there is time to select a lens and think about the picture, it's always one the 77, 43 or old FA 50. The DFA* 85 is bigger than the superzoom and makes people more aware of being photographed.

[reh321]

The changing lenses all the time was why I got a super zoom, it's a much better proposition for travel and when I had 3 zooms I was always switching between them. The superzoom works for grabbed shots of the family, but if there is time to select a lens and think about the picture, it's always one the 77, 43 or old FA 50. The DFA* 85 is bigger than the superzoom and makes people more aware of being photographed.

I had a 18-250mm lens once for my Canon Rebel, but I had retired it before I came back to Pentax in 2015. Even before I had mounted it, I knew which other lens {28-80mm - later 18-55mm } or {70-300mm} I would use instead, and I seldom would switch between them, so why ‘bother’?

[James O'Neill]

I had a 18-250mm lens once for my Canon Rebel, but I had retired it before I came back to Pentax in 2015. Even before I had mounted it, I knew which other lens {28-80mm - later 18-55mm } or {70-300mm} I would use instead, and I seldom would switch between them, so why ‘bother’?

The way I came to the super zoom was this.
From the mid 80s to about 2000. I had a manual focus 28-80 or 85 zoom by Vivitar, and a no-name 70-210 and they covered all my needs. About 2000 I could see digital was coming and if I got a pentax DSLR I'd want auto focus, and bought an Mz5n + Pentax 28-105 zoom (FA 28-105/4-5.6 [IF] | The K-Mount Page ) and a Sigma 100-300 zoom. The sigma was a particularly cheap and nasty lens, and the two Sigmas I've had since were 10 times better. Then I got the *ist-D with the 18-35 FAJ lens. (FAJ 18-35/4-5.6 AL | The K-Mount Page) Plasticky and not hugely satisfying.
35mm was too short on the 18-35 so I kept needing to remove it to get the mid range of the 28-105. But on that 28 wasn't wide with the crop sensor, and lots of shots were taken at 105 when I wanted a bit longer but wouldn't put the sigma on. I also travelled a lot and wanted to take the camera but I needed at least two if not all three of the zooms and that was a pain. So the Pentax 18-250 solved the problems of carrying 3 - it is the same size as the biggest of three. Optically it was no worse than the two Pentaxes and better than the Sigma, and at any given focal length it had the same maximum aperture as the lens it replaced. It only went to 250mm instead of 300, but the truth was if 250 wasn't enough most of the time 300 wasn't either.
Any argument that such-and-such a zoom was better was instantly countered with "but then I'd need to carry two zooms all the time". (I did end up with a second zoom for super wide tasks, but I only carried it some of the time).
I didn't want to have a long zoom and short zoom for the K1 so I bought the nearest FF equivalent I could - a 28-300 Tamron from c. 2000. It's a very usable lens. If I can pick a prime I'll use a prime instead, but when I can't the Tamron does fine.