Improved kit lenses!

junk1 wrote:

Yep - people often tell me I must have a good camera when they see my pics, as if the camera did all the work.

As for lenses, people who do buy lenses too often buy a slow "super-zoom" - even posters on here who ask for advice end up buying a super-zoom (even though nobody advised them to do so).

I also once doubt on superzoom. In the old days a good superzoom must be prohibitively expensive, very large and heavy. IQ would also be weaker than normal zooms (2x/3x) or so.

Few months back while I convinced my wife to replace her old FZ28 (a superzoom compact) with my back up (GF3), I bought her 14-140 MII for a partially compensation on the lose of the wide spectrum of focal length coverage by her old camera. To my surprise, the IQ of such a 10x, relatively small and light weight superzoom indeed could be comparable to my good good 14-45. In the long reach, it is also better than the similar fl of my 45-200. 45-200 is not excellent in its longer end, but it is still very nice upto 150mm beyond. As per many good forum members' opinion, its IQ is even close to a lot of primes!

So, as long as their good IQ, whats wrong to use superzoom (a fact that most M43 zooms are good as primes). The only disadvantage would only be slower speed and still relatively larger and heavier.

Heck, even the pro photographer (local guy who takes pictures at YMCA and schools) uses a slow super-zoom for portraits...crazy.