optical zooms, the more the worse?

my understanding is that when it comes to good zooms, the zoom ratio should not exceed a certain number of times, say 4 times.

is it true with the statement? or is it a fallacy?

AFAIK it's generally true. All my zooms are 3X or less and they're all good quality.

It's a general truth, but there are some specific exceptions. A top-quality long-ranging zoom can be better than a lower-quality zoom with less range, but all things being equal, the generalization holds true.

I agree. The best zoom lenses, such as the Canon L zooms, usually have a 3:1 zoom ratio or less. There are a few zoom lenses with a 10:1 ratio that are quite acceptable, but a lot that are essentially junk.

It's a generalization but its true. Its also compounded by many of these uber zooms being budget priced.

I had a co-worker tell me he was "getting into professional photography" and had some stuff on order. Firstly it was on order from Royal Camera. You can imagine how well that went. Secondly, when the stuff arrived (from BH after the first order fell through) it was a very nice 20D and a Tamron 28-300 hyper zoom. He got the hyperzoom because, apparently, it would be fantastic for portraits.

Is this a vote against the 24-105 L (ratio >4)? I was pretty much determined to purchase the 24-70L, until the 24-105 started to sound like another good choice for 'the best every day' lens. (I'm still leaning towards the 24-70)

Hmm, I certainly don't think my 50-500 is junk and it's 10x. Image quality is certainly good enough IMO. But yes alot of them do degrade with large focal ranges.

Is 70-200L 3X zoom?
Are they any good?

70-200 range is one of the best, most versatile zoom lengths, especially with the crops on the camera.

Canon's 70-200's are their best zooms out there. Doesn't get better than 70-200 2.8L IS.

It's a fallacy....mostly
Or to put it more clearly- lenses of more than 4x zoom ratio can certainly be made to give outstanding image quality,it's just a matter of cost

In the end it's best to only use the 'more is worse' rule as a rough guide

Some of the notable exceptions are
- Canon 35-350 L
- Canon 28-300 L
- Sigma 50-500

Still, these lenses will not be as sharp as the 70-200/2.8L or the 100-400 L.

I also heard good things from various sources about the Tokina 24-200 lens, but most likely this should better be used stopped down quite a bit.

Best regards,
Andy

The first three were the exceptions I was thinking about when I first responded. They're pretty good, but not quite up to the level of the 70-200 lenses.

Another difficulty in lenses is the transition from wide-angle to telephoto. Lenses that cross this boundary represent more difficult design constraints than do strictly telephoto lenses.

I don't think we'll ever see 10:1 ultra-wides either.

I'm not sure the Canon 28-300L lens et al actually disprove the comment that higher zoom ranges generally make for weaker lenses. That lens is around $2200. The 70-200 L IS $600 cheaper and much better quality.

I'm not saying its a bad lens, just that you have to spend a lot more to get something that doesn't even touch the quality of other tele lenses.

or the Sigma 120-300 2.8. Best valued 2.8 300 that you can get.

Well, the 28-300L is better than a lot of shorter-range zoom lenses, but at quite a high price. Perhaps it would have been better to say that a good wide-ranging zoom is better than a not-so-good zoom of less range, but not as good as a good zoom with less zoom range.

Say that fast 5 times.