Just had a bit of a crazy thought and was wondering if someone had any ideas if this was a good or bad decision. I originally bought my 18-200 about 2 years ago, and I was amazed. My copy was absolutely pin sharp, and had an amazing all encompassing range...I was relatively new to the slr game then, and thought this was a wonder lens. However as my photography has moved on, I've been having other thoughts: What is the purpose of this lens?!
Most people I think will claim its an amazing 'walk around' lens. This to me seems to justify its use only for holidays, or for landscapes, which is fair enough...but I'm going to admit now, its simply horrible for portraits. On my last trip to Rome I found myself using the 10-20mm Sigma most of the time for landscapes and actually dreading to put on the 18-200, except when it was low light in the evenings and buildings! And when I wanted to take portraits of people, I really hated the fact that starting from 24mm the aperture was only as wide as F4 and getting smaller! Also, most holiday shots are 'snapshots' - rarely going above 100mm really, with average apertures like F8-F11, which really doesn't mandate the need for a DSLR. The same for most landscape photography, you're using mid to high apertures and wide focal lengths.
Which got me thinking - I'm about to buy a mid range fast zoom - probably the Sigma 18-50 2.8 - which would certainly cover the portraits and landscape togging - so would there be any point in keeping the 18-200?! This 2.8 would take awesome portraits, be pretty good for landscapes (and I could use the 10-20 too when needed) - and this is the crazy thought - I could sell the 18-200 and with that money get a super zoom bridge camera - the Canon SX 1 IS has a quite frankly insane 28-560mm stabilised range) and keep that in my bag when I need some tele range. That way, it would not only save time me switching lenses, but I could also keep my ultra wide angle on most of the time too!
So, to summarise, assuming they are will cost the same roughly, use the 18-50/10-20 as my main lenses, replacing the 18-200 with a superzoom camera:
Pros - No switching lenses, preferred lens on DSLR most of the time, another camera always ready for action, increased range, possibly smaller and lighter.
Cons - Worse noise and image quality (although debatable if they're just holiday snaps..), worse night shots, more blurry teleshots(?), depreciation (the 18-200 will pretty much hold its value forever, or lose little, I can see a bridge camera not being worth anything in a few years)
Anyone see any possible flaws to this plan?
I'm trying to be a slr purist, I really am, but the more I think about it, the more I realise I hardly use the 18-200 VR anymore, and the better a bridge would be for the 70-200+ range?
Most people I think will claim its an amazing 'walk around' lens. This to me seems to justify its use only for holidays, or for landscapes, which is fair enough...but I'm going to admit now, its simply horrible for portraits. On my last trip to Rome I found myself using the 10-20mm Sigma most of the time for landscapes and actually dreading to put on the 18-200, except when it was low light in the evenings and buildings! And when I wanted to take portraits of people, I really hated the fact that starting from 24mm the aperture was only as wide as F4 and getting smaller! Also, most holiday shots are 'snapshots' - rarely going above 100mm really, with average apertures like F8-F11, which really doesn't mandate the need for a DSLR. The same for most landscape photography, you're using mid to high apertures and wide focal lengths.
Which got me thinking - I'm about to buy a mid range fast zoom - probably the Sigma 18-50 2.8 - which would certainly cover the portraits and landscape togging - so would there be any point in keeping the 18-200?! This 2.8 would take awesome portraits, be pretty good for landscapes (and I could use the 10-20 too when needed) - and this is the crazy thought - I could sell the 18-200 and with that money get a super zoom bridge camera - the Canon SX 1 IS has a quite frankly insane 28-560mm stabilised range) and keep that in my bag when I need some tele range. That way, it would not only save time me switching lenses, but I could also keep my ultra wide angle on most of the time too!
So, to summarise, assuming they are will cost the same roughly, use the 18-50/10-20 as my main lenses, replacing the 18-200 with a superzoom camera:
Pros - No switching lenses, preferred lens on DSLR most of the time, another camera always ready for action, increased range, possibly smaller and lighter.
Cons - Worse noise and image quality (although debatable if they're just holiday snaps..), worse night shots, more blurry teleshots(?), depreciation (the 18-200 will pretty much hold its value forever, or lose little, I can see a bridge camera not being worth anything in a few years)
Anyone see any possible flaws to this plan?
I'm trying to be a slr purist, I really am, but the more I think about it, the more I realise I hardly use the 18-200 VR anymore, and the better a bridge would be for the 70-200+ range?
