Good all around telephoto lens

[CRman]

Looking at getting a lens that if I want to just carry one, I can do so.

Something like a 18-300 or 28-300... somewhere along those lines. I know Sigma, and tamron make them but I am looking to get feed back on who has what and how they like them. Chime in if you have a good suggestion.

Thanks!

 

[keith204]

I don't have any experience with them, and your signature doesn't help me understand your taste.

If you're going for a super extreme zoom like the ones you mentioned, you'll definitely lose some quality. However, if you want one with such a good range, I would totally go for an 18-200 over a 28-300. A lens that only goes as wide as 28 would certainly never be an all-around lens for any crop body.

To answer your question a little bit better, take a look at the Sigma 18-200 w/ OS. It's a higher priced one, but has good reviews and the OS would be nice.

 

[bigalbest]

One lens is never enough.

 

[Alfred D.]

If you go to the trouble – and expense – of buying an SLR camera, which' defining factor is the exchangeability of its lenses, then it is stupid to want to do with only one lens. Sorry, but I don't mince words. It would be the same as getting a Mercedes 500 SLC and running it on LNG!

 

[JIP]

There all junk don't waste your money. I guess if you are not concerned about image quality go ahead and buy whatever lens you want but it will suffer with a lens like this.

 

[Socrates]

I don't have any experience with them, and your signature doesn't help me understand your taste.

If you're going for a super extreme zoom like the ones you mentioned, you'll definitely lose some quality. However, if you want one with such a good range, I would totally go for an 18-200 over a 28-300. A lens that only goes as wide as 28 would certainly never be an all-around lens for any crop body.

To answer your question a little bit better, take a look at the Sigma 18-200 w/ OS. It's a higher priced one, but has good reviews and the OS would be nice.

The 18-200 is an excellent "walk around" lens. Naturally, you lose quality with any zoom but you can't expect to get the added versatility without giving up something.

 

[dEARlEADER]

If you go to the trouble – and expense – of buying an SLR camera, which' defining factor is the exchangeability of its lenses, then it is stupid to want to do with only one lens. Sorry, but I don't mince words. It would be the same as getting a Mercedes 500 SLC and running it on LNG!

Read the post of the OP..... he wants the OPTION of using a walk around lens at his leisure...

There is nothing wrong with this..... I wouldn't always want a tote his 12 pound sack of primes around just because of some paltry excuse that he has to because he OWNS a DSLR...

A tool for every job..... and 18-200 is an excellent tool for a hobbyist that wants to get the shots without carrying a trailer full of primes.... and GETTING the shots should emphasized... Hardly ever a missed opportunity walking through town streets with this lens..... head shots, wide shots, half body shots..... the ability for candids from farther away.... if I tried this with my primes I would be missing shots or losing IQ because I'm cropping anyways...

my 18-200 has afforded me tons of shots I wouldn't have gotten otherwise... I use my primes when I'm serious about a specific shot... but the 18-200 is the standby lens thats always on my camera to start... makes perfect sense for a hobbyist...

 

[Dao]

I do not have a Nikon, but I do know a lot of people had the 18-200mm Nikkor. And I do see good result from it as well.

If I walk around in the city and just want to use one lens, I will get the 18-200mm. And yes, the optical quality is not top of the line, but from looking at the pictures that took with the lens by others, I do not see why not.

 

[Socrates]

my 18-200 has afforded me tons of shots I wouldn't have gotten otherwise... I use my primes when I'm serious about a specific shot... but the 18-200 is the standby lens thats always on my camera to start... makes perfect sense for a hobbyist...

Exactly. I probably take fewer shots with my 18-200 than most of my other lenses but, whenever the camera is just laying around, the 18-200 is mounted.

 

[asfixiate]

i'm no nikon user but I've heard from a few members that the 55-200 VR is a great lense. I dont know how much it is of course.

 

[CRman]

Yes, as for the sig it simple to explaine. Experimenting. There are even 2 not listed I just got. LOL.... How would you like Ice cream it there was only vanilla? Gotta sample a lot of flavors until you find what you like.

Quality in a telephoto I know suffers.... I dont care all that much. I am looking more a being a versitile walk around that I dont have to carry a lot with me for just random shots. Hence I want a range from 24-28 to 200-300mm.

Something I can take for leasure instead of specific reason.

Thanks for the replys and keep them coming if you have good advice.

 

[asfixiate]

wow. I didnt even realize you had it listed in your sig. Sorry about that.

 

[CRman]

No prob... I love the little 55-200 VR but want the just a good all around carry lens. A "lighten my load" lens for day walk just playing.

 

[asfixiate]

I like my 50mm as walk around lense. Next lense i'd get is 28-135 I'm canon user though.

 

[djacobox372]

For a walk around lens I recommend a sigma 24-60 f:2.8, it's very cheap for such quality glass. If you want more zoom you can pair it with a 70-200 f:2.8 in the future.

I've tried a number of the mega-zooms and they haven't impressed me, they're slow and soft. I do own a tamron 28-300 which would seem like a good choice for those that only want to carry around one lens, but I hardly ever use it... I'd rather have a more limited range then lackluster photos.

I think I'm pretty typical, most start with a mega-zoom hoping for a one-stop shop, but end up with two or three zooms and the mega-zoom never sees the light of day again.