2 kit lenses or 1 super-zoom?

[b_twill]

Lately I've been toying with the idea of getting either the Nikon 18-300 (or even the 28-300 fx) or Tameron 16-300 for general use/vacations. I currently have the Nikon 18-105 and 55-300 kit lenses.
Typically on vacations, I'll have the 18-105 for landscape/family snaps but then I'll miss the occasional serendipitous bird/wildlife opportunity due to not enough reach.
I know the super-zooms have their limitations, so I'm just wondering if the limitations are worth having a all-in-one or should I just keep using my 2 kit lenses?
I have the D7000 and a Sigma 150-500.

 

[tirediron]

This is really a matter of personal preference. From the examples I've seen the Nikon 18-200 really loses at/near wide open at both ends of its range. I can only guess that the Tameron would be as bad, and likely a bit worse. The easy solution is to get a second body and keep both lenses mounted all the time! For me, the loss of IQ and slowness of the super-zooms outweighs ANY benefit derived from their massive FL. YMMV.

 

[goodguy]

This is really a matter of personal preference.

Agreed,
Superzoom is offering great focal flexibility but you pay with loss of image quality.
For me I always want best image quality possible so I would recommend 18-105mm + 55-300mm
For my vacations I take on me always minimum of camera + 24-70mm 2.8 and 70-200mm 2.8
Big, balky and heavy but boy am I happy once I get home and process these files.

 

[Dave442]

In my case I came to the conclusion that I am not missing that:

occasional serendipitous bird/wildlife opportunity

The basic reason is that for me to get some decent keepers usually requires that I be thinking about the type of subject I want to focus on. I use the time in changing lenses to make that mental adjustment.

So I have stayed away from super zooms, but I do have a friend that just uses his super zoom for almost everything.

 

[jaomul]

It boils down to convenience vs quality. A superzoom goes the length with compromise normally. Even take focusing. If your at 20mm then zoom to 250, it's a big way for a lens to focus, and normally motors are if the less fancy type in these lenses.

There is no doubt the superzooms are handy, and no doubt capable of excellence in when not in problematic light, but to buy a dslr and use the best possible lenses yields better quality images

 

[SCraig]

I find the convenience of a superzoom to outweigh the minor loss of image quality. I'm not willing to carry a couple of lenses around any longer because for me there is no need to. I normally take two bodies and three lenses to an event, but only one leaves the car. I decide what lens (singular) I want to carry around, and more and more often lately that has become my Sigma 18-300.

 

[b_twill]

Thanks for the replies! I'll probably stick with what I have...Though for the price, maybe a second body, hmmmm.

 

[dannylightning]

yes super zooms are convenient, its nice to have one when the time comes that you go some place and would rather not or cant take multiple lenses with you..

my nikon 18-200 is a great lens over all, allot of people say its a bad lens but mine is not, its said to be better than the 18-300mm nikon lens., i can say the image quality is good over all but the lens is not perfect.. its really good for shooting images that are close, some times when shooting something farther away and cropping in on it it seems like ti did not get perfect focus and the image looks a little sub par. i cant really comment on the 18-300mm lenses since i have never acutally used them.. i just know what i read about the nikon 18-200 vs the nikon 18-300 and the 18-200 seems like a much better lens..

the other lenses i have all beat that lens in most ways but its allot less convenient and needing to change lenses.

 

[fmw]

I vote for the 2 kit lenses. Zooms are an optical compromise to begin with. The greater the zoom range, the greater the compromise. Choose between image quality and convenience. I voted for image quality.

 

[KC1]

I like the Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED V R Lens.

 

[astroNikon]

This is always the battle of wide angle vs zoom.
I have it too many times.
If I go to a marching band game (or general carry around) my 80-200 is to long for wide shots and not long enough for other shots. So you miss the framing that you want on shots because you just don't have the lens ready as you have to immediately switch.

Yes, you could use 2 bodies. I had 2 bodies at one time but found that hugely inconvenient to carry 2 bodies. I'm not a Pro and I want some shots for memory-sake not to sell and make money.

So for me, I'm saving up for a 28-300 (for a FF body) just for the convenience. I know the shortcoming of it, but if I need UW one second and 300mm Zoom the next I'll have it.

After all, having lower IQ of a shot is better than not having the shot at all .. that's the way I'm thinking of it nowadays. My other focal ranges are covered too, so this is an additional lens for the convenience.

But it also comes down to how much spare $$ do you have and what you determine as convenience.

 

[manaheim]

I stick with optical quality, choose a lens that mostly fits my needs for the day and accept that I either have to zoom with my legs occasionally or that I will miss some shots. For 90% of my needs, the 24-70 is fine on an FX camera. For specific events and outings the 70-200 VR2 is a better choice.

I also have a messenger bag which affords me a relatively easy carry of my alternate option when I'm uncertain and willing to have some cargo with me.

It helps a little that my camera is 36MP so I can "zoom in" by cropping to some degree.

The 18-200 is actually quite decent from around 30mm-170mm. Outside of that range, the optics are a train wreck. I consider it totally unusable at that point.

 

[DarkShadow]

I rather change up lenses.I have Nikon 18-140mm and pick up where I almost leave off with the Sigma 150-600mm.

 

[goodguy]

I rather change up lenses.I have Nikon 18-140mm and pick up where I almost leave off with the Sigma 150-600mm.

The Nikon 18-140mm is probably the best general use lens Nikon made for DX lenses, it covers you from 24-210mm (FF equivalent) with pretty good IQ throughout the range and offers, good money value, and its not too big or too heavy.

 

[DarkShadow]

I agree the 18-140mm is sharp with decent color and contrast.It's far better then the super zoom I had in the past like the Tamron 18-270mm which was ok but never really that sharp but was Canon mount not that should make any difference.