The Superzoom which actually DOES it

AdamT wrote:

That was the Tamron 18-250 with a sony badge and it was decent, I had one until the superior 18-270VC (1st rev) came out as it beat all the sigmas bar stellar copies of the original 1st generation non stabilized 18-200DC . the long end of the Tamron (sony) 18-250 was poor at the edges at 250 though as you say got better as you zoomed back, at close distance anyway.. getting the edges sharp in a compressed landscape needed F16 which wasn`t good for any APS-C sensor above 6Mp.

Yes, the Sony 18-250mm was almost the same as the Tamron 18-250mm.  The screw drive AF mechanism had different gearing for the Sony model and the coatings I recall were different.  Of course, cosmetics were different too.  I seem to recall that the zoom ring may have turned in the opposite direction too.  The Sony 11-18mm was also quite similar to the Tamron 11-18mm.

I also had the first version of the Tamron 18-270mm, but in Canon mount.

Tests in Reviews are always done at close range, garden distance at most . the new Panny 14-140 even pulls it off at infinity which is the hardest part (and essential for compressed landscapes), only really good 70-300 full frame lenses can pull this off on APS-C .. What gets me about the panny II is that the close focussing at 140 is very good indeed for both closeness and quality , total contrast to its stablemates, 14-42-IIHD and 45-150 which don`t even get remotely close at full zoom and aren't at their best as close as they do get.

I rarely use these superzooms for landscape stuff.  That is interesting to hear that most of them are much worse at infinity than shorter distances.  I wonder why?