one lens or two?

D

Dr4ke

Messages
82
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a Nikon D3200, an 18-55 kit lens and a 55-300 telephoto (I also have a 50mm 1.8G prime, but that's not important for this post).

I brought all my lenses to the USA for my vacation away, visiting the parks and the scenary this country has to offer, but I'm now trying to decide whether I should replace my 18-55 & 55-300 with a 18-300 when walking around to avoid having to change lenses out and about and more importantly avoid missing an important shot.

So... I have the following questions;

1) Does anyone have a 18-300?
2) Is it worth purchasing one, or should I just change lenses (after all that's what a DSLR is all about, right?)?
3) Should I save the money (almost £700) and start saving for a different lens (I'd like a bigger zoom eventually) or a FX camera (D800 maybe?).

Photography is purely a hobby for me, I have no plans to make it a career. I love taking great pictures and I have no desire whatsoever to give up my job, if taking pictures as a hobby brings a bit of extra cash then thats great - but it's certainly not a driver for me.

Thanks to anyone that can help.

Dr4ke
 
If it helps at all...

I once had a Sigma 28-300mm which I used as a holiday and day out lens and I got some great shots with it but...

You almost certainly wont get the ultimate quality from a superzoom when measured against a shorter range zoom. It may not be as sharp and there'll probably be more distortion but you may have to look close to see the less good aspects. For whole images at reasonable image sizes the images may be more than good enough depending on how demanding you are.

Another problem could be the superzooms aperture range. Mine was a rather pedestrian f3.5-6.3 and at 300mm and f6.3 I needed good light to get an adequate shutter speed.

Other than that, as long as you accept that a superzoom probably wont be able to match the quality of two shorter range lenses and if you can put up with the weight and bulk the advantage is that you have a very flexible (in zoom range) lens.
 
Hi Alan and thanks for the reply!

As is my nature, I pinpointed the 'I once had' - why did you get rid of it? What did you get rid of it for?

I am now two thirds through my holiday, and even if I were to purchase a new superzoom it wouldn't be until I am back home. Also, realistically, I wont be venturing out on a holiday again for a while...

So I wonder if it is best to go for another lens (when the requirement brings it) or hold off and start a 'FX pot'.

Thoughts?
 
Dr4ke said:
As is my nature, I pinpointed the 'I once had' - why did you get rid of it? What did you get rid of it for?
Click to expand...

I sold it as I wanted a wider and better quality lens but to be honest I regret selling it and I wish I hadn't. It was a pretty basic and unremarkable lens with ho hum performance but there was nothing wrong with whole images viewed normally and the zoom range meant that it fitted the one lens does all role and I did take it on holiday and for days out when the photography wasn't the main aim (ie. when with the other half and not wanting to upset her too much by spending too much time playing with my camera.)

I replaced the 28-300mm with a Canon EF-S 17-85mm but I wasn't very happy with it and it too went and was replaced with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. I sold that lens when I changed from an APS-C 20D to a 5D.
 
Last edited:
If you mean one like mine remember that mine was a 28-300mm and a starting point of 28mm isn't that wide on APS-C, you may prefer a 18-xxxmm.
 
I have a sigma 28-300. Still use it. Its a bit slow and can be slightly soft but compared to missing things altogether its great. It's my don't know what I want to shoot lens. Learning to hand hold at slow shutter speeds will be an essential skill :)

I haven't tried an 18-270. Tamron still make their 28-300. Its handy if you still have a film camera or may want full frame later as it will work on either. The 18- whatever's are really intended for crop cameras.

It has roughly the same range as my bridge camera so i find it useful having that range but with better quality.
 
A couple of modest primes do me. I suspect that changing them occasionally whilst out & about admits less sensor dust than the continual pump action of a zoom ...?
 
I think you're right; I dont need it anytime soon though, so I'll wait and see what comes up.

Thanks for the help!
 
droj said:
A couple of modest primes do me. I suspect that changing them occasionally whilst out & about admits less sensor dust than the continual pump action of a zoom ...?
Click to expand...

You prefer multiple primes over a telephoto, and having to change when in the field?
 
I'd suggest looking at better quality lens, for me the slow 18-300mm is way overpriced and won't give you anything except not changing lens for your £700 notes, not something I'd be willing to spend £700 on, for me I'd be looking at prime lens, maybe a 35mm to go with your 50mm and then a 70-200mm f2.8 from tamron or sigma from digital rev.

You say you would like a bigger zoom, what for exactly? as in what type of shots with it as that can make a difference.
 
Thanks Ivan; I agree after some diliberation after this post, why have a DSLR if you're not prepared to change lenses. Silly questions coming up now, apologies....

1) Why would I want a 35mm as well as a 50mm? As only a keen hobbyist, isn't it simply just the object of moving further away with my 50??
2) Why get a 70-200 when I have a 55-300? Aren't I just overlapping what I already have?

Bigger zoom for wildlife photography. For example when at a Zoo or out and about on a walk; to be able to get closer with zoom when not possible in person.
 
Years ago I traded a pair of kit lenses for a single lens that covered the whole range. Not too long afterwards I upgraded back to a 2 lens solution to cover the same range. My swaps were from a 28-80 and 70-300 D Nikkors to a 28-300 Tamron then back to an 18-70 DX and a 70-300 VR (I had gone digital in the meantime and 28 isn't wide enough for me on a Dx sensor). That early superzoom Tamron wasn't really up to much optically but was very convenient, covering all the bases in one lens. Slow too, both in terms of maximum aperture and AF speed.

It does seem that lens design has come a long way in recent years though. I was in a camera shop a few months ago and there was a Tamron 18-270 on their 2nd hand shelf for £200. Since I had just been given back my old D70 (Dx body) and wanted a lens to leave on it (the 18-70 had been sold with a D200 and replaced with a 24-70 f/2.8 FF), I bought it. It's significantly better in every way than the old 28-300 apart from missing those 30mm at the long end (and my tastes are more towards the wide end anyway). Still not the fastest in either respect but quick enough for my needs since the outfit's a lightweight holiday setup - D70 and the single lens (the full FF kit is too heavy and uses all the hand baggage allowance and then some!)

Simon, sometimes footzoom simply isn't possible; think of a beach where there's sea in front of you and cliffs behind, or a harbour with the water and warehousing (or other buildings). 70-200 lenses are often fast - f/2.8, so allow more light in thus shorter shutter speeds. They're often extremely sharp too, so with enough MP, you can sometimes get better results from cropping into a 200mm shot from an excellent lens than you can from a 300mm shot from a less good lens.
 
I had the 18-200mm and absolutely loved it. I wouldn't haven't got the 18-300 because the weight defeats the object and the extra 100mm is nothing.

The only time I used another lens was to get a faster aperture, not for more quality glass.

If you want an all in one solution then go for it - don't let other people tell you what you need, if you want it just go for it - take it from me, it's more than capable :)
 
Thanks Phil & Nod,

I think I'll have to have a serious think and depending on what's available at what cost I'll make my decision. I don't want to spend the 650 notes on the 18-300 as I do like my other lenses and I'll always need to change for my prime 50mm 1.8 anyway...

Lots of decisions..... if only lenses were free....
 
Dr4ke said:
Thanks Phil & Nod,

I think I'll have to have a serious think and depending on what's available at what cost I'll make my decision. I don't want to spend the 650 notes on the 18-300 as I do like my other lenses and I'll always need to change for my prime 50mm 1.8 anyway...

Lots of decisions..... if only lenses were free....
Click to expand...

This site often has used stuff but this one is new...
http://www.ffordes.com/product/100723163510665

This one starts at 28mm which isn't very wide on APS-C but for £99 it's interesting...
http://www.ffordes.com/product/13082312163081
 
Last edited:
Sigma 18-250 offers decent images and is really handy when changing lenses isn't something you want to/can do.
 
woof woof said:
This site often has used stuff but this one is new...
http://www.ffordes.com/product/100723163510665

This one starts at 28mm which isn't very wide on APS-C but for £99 it's interesting...
http://www.ffordes.com/product/13082312163081
Click to expand...

Thank you - what would you say is a good starting focal length? I guess that's a personal thing, right? When I am using my DSLR it would probably be better to take note of what mm I'm at and that will give me my answer?

Re Tamrom/Sigma lenses, all of my Nikon lenses have VR - is it called something different on Tamrom/Sigma, as I never see it referenced as VR?
 
I don't think they have IS/VR, I think that's why they're cheap.

28mm isn't very wide on an APS-C camera, 18mm is the new wide :D on APS-C but as you say it really does depend what you're happy with.
 
All manufacturers have their own terms for the same things, they're websites will have a glossary.
 
Dr4ke said:
Re Tamrom/Sigma lenses, all of my Nikon lenses have VR - is it called something different on Tamrom/Sigma, as I never see it referenced as VR?
Click to expand...

Sigma call it OS (Optical Stabilisation), Tamron call it VC (Vibration Control). My Tamron has VC. TBH, I wasn't actually looking for one, it just happened to be on the shelf when I went in for something else and at £200 I figured it was worth a punt! Ultimate IQ isn't up to that of lenses with a shorter range but it's fine for prints up to A4 with little cropping and possibly bigger if you've got the pixels to play with! (Haven't stuck it on the D800 to see what that does with it - the Tamron's a Dx (well, Di II) lens so wasted on FF bodies.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top