All in one lenses any good?

[ecphoto]

Like the Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3?

Anyone have used these types that promise an all in one lens?
I know there's no such thing, but it would be nice to combine the 18-55 and 55-250.

 

[Alex_B]

It really depends on what you expect from a lens. Certainly a wide focal range of some zoom lenses is rather convenient. Less weight, no changing of lenses, ...

However do not expect the lens to perform equally well over the whole zoom range. Usually you get stronger distortions at the far and at the wide end of the zoom range (which makes it useless for architectural photography for example), chromatic aberration will be worse too.

In my experience I never used a lens beyond a 3x zoom where I was happy with its performance with respect to distortion and chromatic aberration ... with maybe the exception of the 100-400 (4x zoom) and with some restrictions also the 24-105 f/4 L (approx. 4x zoom).

So I would not recommend lenses in the range of 15x zoom. (But maybe for your uses it might be OK, who knows)

 

[ecphoto]

It really depends on what you expect from a lens. Certainly a wide focal range of some zoom lenses is rather convenient. Less weight, no changing of lenses, ...

However do not expect the lens to perform equally well over the whole zoom range. Usually you get stronger distortions at the far and at the wide end of the zoom range (which makes it useless for architectural photography for example), chromatic aberration will be worse too.

In my experience I never used a lens beyond a 3x zoom where I was happy with its performance with respect to distortion and chromatic aberration ... with maybe the exception of the 100-400 (4x zoom) and with some restrictions also the 24-105 f/4 L (approx. 4x zoom).

So I would not recommend lenses in the range of 15x zoom. (But maybe for your uses it might be OK, who knows)

You've said it all lol. Quality is very important to me, so it wouldn't be worth it to me. I'm really particular about performance so I get it now

I usually don't need to change that abruptly anyway?

Would you say that having VC or IS is a must?

 

[Alex_B]

You've said it all lol. Quality is very important to me, so it wouldn't be worth it to me. I'm really particular about performance so I get it now

But then again I never had my hands on a Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3, maybe it is good. It just gets harder and harder to build a decent lens the wider the zoom range gets. So I have some serious doubt that said lens will be a high performer.

Ever considered a prime lens? They have no zoom whatsoever and hence often are well optimised.

I usually don't need to change that abruptly anyway?

Ever shot an event, a wedding, or combined wildlife/landscape? There are moments when you either need to change lenses very quickly, or bring a second camera body with a different lens on it.

Would you say that having VC or IS is a must?

No, but it can be VERY convenient to have. In particular for long lenses. Would not want to miss it on my 300mm.

 

[ecphoto]

You've said it all lol. Quality is very important to me, so it wouldn't be worth it to me. I'm really particular about performance so I get it now

But then again I never had my hands on a Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3, maybe it is good. It just gets harder and harder to build a decent lens the wider the zoom range gets. So I have some serious doubt that said lens will be a high performer.

Ever considered a prime lens? They have no zoom whatsoever and hence often are well optimised.

I usually don't need to change that abruptly anyway?

Ever shot an event, a wedding, or combined wildlife/landscape? There are moments when you either need to change lenses very quickly, or bring a second camera body with a different lens on it.

Would you say that having VC or IS is a must?

No, but it can be VERY convenient to have. In particular for long lenses. Would not want to miss it on my 300mm.

I've done some wedding work for friends and family. I usually use a prime for the after ceremony photo shoot and a zoom for everything else.
I would love to have two bodies, but my cash flow won't allow it lol.
I just switched to Canon from Sony, so I'm starting to build up my lens collection again.

 

[cgipson1]

I love my Nikon 28-300! It does not have the IQ of my 70-200 2.8, but the convenience and speed make it a great walkaround lens! And it still has damn good IQ.. without pixel peeping, most people wouldn't see that much difference.

 

[JSER]

People talk about zooms being no good for them as they want "quality" ignore them, my teenage son has the Nikkor 28-300 VR and he has put his A3+ prints up against Nikkor primes, the difference, unseen outside of a lab

 

[Alex_B]

People talk about zooms being no good for them as they want "quality" ignore them, my teenage son has the Nikkor 28-300 VR and he has put his A3+ prints up against Nikkor primes, the difference, unseen outside of a lab

I am afraid I live and shoot outside of a lab .. I do use zoom lenses, but not those ultra-zooms as
I only had bad experience with what I shoot.

 

[TimGilbertson]

A good read is the article Lens Genealogy on Canon Rumours. The focal length categories of zoom lenses (16-24, 24-70, 70-200+) is a result of the different lens designs that facilitate these focal length ranges. To go from 18-270 mm requires some very complex engineering. There is going to be a lot of compromise in the lens construction to keep the lens reasonably priced and sized. As a result, the quality of the optics suffer.

Compromises like this are seen all over, even on the best lenses. High quality, expensive lenses often have considerable vignetting but as a tradeoff you get better sharpness wide open.

Prime lenses are generally better than their zoom counterparts, but there are exceptions. The Nikon 14-24 mm f2.8 is likely the sharpest 14 mm lens ever made; better than both Canon and Nikon's pro 14 mm f2.8 primes.