Question about next lens

[Gbarnes90]

Hello, I currently have the Nikon d5600 that came as the 2 lens bundle. So it has the 18-55 kit lens and the 70-300 lens that doesn’t have VR. I don’t shoot any specific style. I mainly take the camera everywhere and shoot whatever looks good. I was at a track meet this weekend and was a little annoyed switching back and forth between the 2 lenses. Does it make sense to buy a larger ranged lens? Something like an 18-200 or 18-300? I just don’t know if it is better to have one good lens like that, or if it’s better to just keep switching between the 2. Any recommendations on a lens I should look into?

 

[Derrel]

For the past few years they can't has made an 18 to 140 mm as it's all around one lenssolution. In the past Nikon made 28 to 200 mm solution. In the past Nikon made 28to 200 mm as well as 18 to 200 mm,and there are now many super zoom lenses which go from 18 mm up to 270mm, and Tamron has an 18 to 400 mm

While the Optical quality of these lenses may not be the best, they require no lens changing from wide angle to telephoto. There is something to be said for these lenses when one wishes to have everything all in one zoom lens. If you need higher quality, prime lenses or lenses which cost a lot of money(zooms) can deliver the goods.

You are correct--a two-zoom lens kit consisting of an 18–55 mm and a 70 --300 mm requires a lot of lens switching at times.

 

[Gbarnes90]

So it’s not a bad idea to pick up something that will cover everything? I just think it will be easier for me to have 1 lens that does it all. I am looking at a few lenses...

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR

Sigma: 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM | C

Tamron: 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

 

[Derrel]

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR

 

[ac12]

It all depends on what you shoot and what your picture quality expectations are.

If you are constantly going between the 18-55 and 55-200, yes you would benefit from a super zoom.

The next question is how long on the long end; 270, 300, 400.
That depends on where you are vs. where your subject is, and how big/small the subject is. You have to make the call on that.

In general, the ultra zooms have lower image quality than the shorter zooms. But, if you print no larger than 4x6 or don't crop deeply into the image, it may be "good enough" for you. Technology has been advancing and making super and ultra zooms do what was considered impossible before. But at the same time, our expectations are rising because of that.
Read the reviews.
A friend took the Nikon 18-300 to Europe and loved that lens.

 

[RVT1K]

I'm not sure why you have a DSLR as changing lenses to suit the situation is a given.

Maybe consider a good point-n-shoot? It would be a lot easier to carry around, too.

 

[Raw photographer]

You could get Something like a 55-250mm. IMO the longer the range is the poorer the optics and the overall image quality. Although stated above something like a tamron 18-400mm isn't a bad option although they are a bit pricey and again the optics may or may not be the best.

 

[Derrel]

Image quality versus convenience and speed.

Years ago, Modern Photography magazine's SLR columnist, Herbert Keppler, wrote an article describing Tamron's development of the 28-200 zoom, considered by many as the first '" all-in-one " zoom lens, made possible by a lens innovation Tamron developed--the triple extension lens barrel. Keppler was a big advocate of the 28-200 lens for its quick focal length access; need a 28,35,50,55,60,75,85,105,135,150,180 ,or 200mm lens length? In one or two seconds, you had the desired length...

Tamron currently makes an 18-400mm zoom.

 

[Derrel]

I have a owned exactly 2 super zoom lenses:The Nikon 28 to 200 mm G-series model, and Tamron's 28 to 270 mm. I used both with the Nikon D 70, a 6-megapixel camera, and i've made a number of pretty good photos with the 28-200 G,but then I got the 28-270 and felt that the Tamron was so poor, that I gave it away. I purchased it used for $100 around 2005. On the other hand, the grandmother that I gave the Tamron to really liked it, and loved the super range on her Nikon D50. Strangely enough I ran into her the other day, and asked her if she still had the lend. yes she said, she did, but now she relies upon her phone to high degree.

One thing is that as since our resolution levels go up and up and up it becomes more important to have better lens designs. For example Nikon's current 18 to 140 mm zoom replaced the earlier 18 to 135 mm zoom, As sensor resolution bumped up from 16 million pixels to 24 million Pixels, which showed the weaknesses and shortcomings of the earlier model lens. The same thing happened with Nikon's 28 to 200 mm then back when they shifted from 6MP to 12MP and then to 16 million pixels. The first generation Nikon 28 to 200 mm zoom was an extremely popular lens, and Nikon made it better and it second iteration was extremely popular as well .

As manufacturers have gained more experience in making a decent super zoom,and there's more and more people have had positive experiences with them it seems that super zooms have become a very popular category.
Of course among "serious" enthusiast, it has become pretty trendy to bash the performance of super zoom lenses, and to really dismiss them.

 

[Solarflare]

Well, if you absolutely have to get a superzoom then go for the good old AF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 vr dx.

Since its quite old, its quite cheap now on the used market. And as far as superzooms go, this is the best lens out there, from any company. For the record, the large brother AF-S 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VR is the same in this regard, for full frame.

Neither are amazing lenses, mind. But considering what they are, they are surprisingly good. Nikon really is the king of superzooms.

AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED VR

Sigma: 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM | C

Tamron: 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

Yikes.

Thanks for listing the. Worst. Lenses. Ever.

Especially that old superturd 18-270mm. Probably worst lens ever made for Nikon F mount. Compared to that, you will easily get better image quality out of an iPhone.

[...] IMO the longer the range is the poorer the optics and the overall image quality. [...]

Thats really not an "IMO". Its a fact.