Super Zoom - How much compromise?

S

Sky Blue Snapper

Messages
27
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
I'm thinking of getting a Sigma 18-250 for my Nikon D90, but keep reading that there is a compromise in quality in have such a range of focal lengths.
At present I've only got the 18-105 kit lens and a Sigma 70-300, both of which take adequate pictures. I like the idea of not having to keep changing lens, but would the Sigma 18-250 be a step down in quality...or since I'm paying £400 for a lens (not much in the world of lens, but more than I can afford), would the quality actually improve?
 
If you go for the Sigma you'll always wonder how much better the Nikon would have been.

If you go for the Nikon, you'll know that the lens is as good as it can be.

It's worth it, go for the Nikon.
 
Having read myself to death on the Sigma 18-250 v Tamron 18-270 v Nikon 18-200, it seems that there isn't that much to choose.
Sigma = possible softness
Tamron = sharp but major focus issues in low light
Nikon = marginally better IQ, but less range and more money.

I set my my on the Sigma, because I do a lot of photography at parties in dark conditions. I like the convenience of not keep swapping the lens, but the question is will the I/Q suffer, even against the basic D90 kit lens or a cheap 70-300?
Or am I barking up the wrong tree and stick with what I've got and maybe look at getting something like a 20-70 2.8 ?
 
I ve got the Nikon 18-200 as my walkabout lens and dont notice much difference in real life compared to my 50mm f1.8 or 80-200 f2.8 but I m talking f8s here not wide open.
If you are shooting in poor light indoors I would have thought a short range large aperture zoom f2.8 would be better or even a 50mm f1.8 or 1.4 and zoom with your feet, even though the D90s very good at 1600iso.
The superzooms tend to be only f5.6 wide open at the long end which is not what you want when the light is poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top