Should I get rid of some of my lenses and get an all-rounder 18-300mm

[peter fran]

I'm fairly new to photography and I was looking at the Sigma 18-300mm (Nikon).I currently have a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Lens,Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G,The bundled Nikon 55mm and a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5.It gets a bit fiddly swapping lenses all the time so I was looking at a lens which covers most of the ones I've got.Any advice would be appreciated

 

[damianmkv]

The first response here will almost always be what to you take photos of ? Superzooms are not always the best in terms of outright IQ but of course that comes with the benefit of convenience. If you don't print huge and look at photos on an iPad then it might be a great way to go for you

It's, unfortunately, one of those things that only you can decide.

 

[Lemaildetom]

What do you use most out of the lot?

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

Yes only you can decide,I went through a similar conundrum and all I have now is 18-55 but that is all I need ,it is freeing to me but would be limiting for a lot of people,,I feel the happiest with my photography ivefelt for ages,
As Damian said if your not printing large and aren't overly self critical you can get away with it
gud luck in your choice

 

[woof woof]

My first lens when I went digital was a super zoom but in my case it was a Sigma 28-300mm as there weren't any 18-300mm lenses in those days.

The advantage of super zooms is that they're a one lens solution, the disadvantages include that they're probably relatively bulky, possibly not as good as shorter zoom range lenses and their aperture range tends to be restrictive (mine was at f6.3 at the long end.)

If you're going to take pictures in good light where the aperture range may be less of an issue and if you're the kind of person who looks at a whole image rather than pixel peeping then a superzoom could be a good option. I took some of my favorite pictures ever with my humble Sigma superzoom and I think they can make very good day out and holiday lenses especially if you have a fast prime available for use when the light level drops and for creative use of depth of field.

 

[TimHughes]

I'm fairly new to photography and I was looking at the Sigma 18-300mm (Nikon).I currently have a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Lens,Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G,The bundled Nikon 55mm and a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5.It gets a bit fiddly swapping lenses all the time so I was looking at a lens which covers most of the ones I've got.Any advice would be appreciated

As your photography develops then likely so will the pictures you want to take and based on that the gear you need. For pictures outdoors in good light with no special effects then a super zoom is a great option. If want to take pictures in doors, in the evening or night time, or want a special look to your photos then you will be disappointed with it. My superzoom has sat on the shelf for 3 years or more, should sell it.

 

[ancient_mariner]

OK, I have a Sigma 18-250 which isn't so very different, plus several other full-frame 28-200s, so may be able to help a little.

In terms of replacing shorter zooms, the 18-275 is very successful if image quality is not of significant importance to you - edges and corners will be relatively blurred and not terribly sharp anywhere, even at small apertures and it's quite soft at 250mm - plus it seems to transmit less light at a given aperture than some 'ordinary' lenses, and focussing is relatively slow. While it will let you capture a wide range of images without having to change a lens, and does OK close-up too, image quality isn't great, with a lack of sparkle and out-of-focus parts sometimes being distracting. It is capable of producing images good enough to hang on the wall *in the right circumstances*, but while on holiday in Canada (what I'd bought it for) I ended up putting the kit 18-55 zoom back on for better image quality and focus response.

If none of that bothers you then get a superzoom.

18mm at f9 - much of the centre is acceptably sharp, but the sides, esp RHS, show signs of blurring.


135mm at f8 - nothing anywhere is sharp IF you pixel peep

 

[soupdragon]

I don't care much for zooms even though I have a few of them.

If you can determine the type of photography you have a preference for, I suggest you buy the best quality prime you can afford that does the job.

I typed all that using my super power of hindsight.

 

[d00d]

I'm fairly new to photography and I was looking at the Sigma 18-300mm (Nikon).I currently have a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Lens,Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G,The bundled Nikon 55mm and a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5.It gets a bit fiddly swapping lenses all the time so I was looking at a lens which covers most of the ones I've got.Any advice would be appreciated

Personally .... I wouldn't get rid of any of those lenses, except perhaps the 18-55 but you'll get so little for it ....

A good all-rounder is the 18-140 .... smaller, lighter & sharper than the 18-300.

But I'm the kind of guy who gets in the mood for a bit of wide angle, a bit of birding of whatever and leaves home with the appropriate lens for the job. A bit all-rounding and it's the 18-140 for me, should be sold as the kit lens on all Nikon DXs.

 

[TCR4x4]

The only time I’d consider a lens like that is if I was going on holiday and wanted a “snapshot”setup, however my phone is probably capable of taking just as good pictures as one of those lenses, except for the longer end of the zoom. Also, me being me, I’d take all my other lenses “just in case” I wanted to take some “proper” photos.

If you just want snapshots and memories, then yes it’ll do, but personally I’d look at getting a good bridge camera instead of a dslr if you don’t want to be changing lenses.

 

[Nawty]

Superzoom and a fast prime is a great travel setup, the only thing is that the 300mm superzooms are big and heavy and that can be annoying and counterproductive.

 

[woof woof]

The only time I’d consider a lens like that is if I was going on holiday and wanted a “snapshot”setup, however my phone is probably capable of taking just as good pictures as one of those lenses, except for the longer end of the zoom. Also, me being me, I’d take all my other lenses “just in case” I wanted to take some “proper” photos.

If you just want snapshots and memories, then yes it’ll do, but personally I’d look at getting a good bridge camera instead of a dslr if you don’t want to be changing lenses.

I don't believe this for a single second

These lenses may not be optically the best things you can mount on a digital camera but they don't cause your sensor to shrink or melt either. IMO their biggest issue isn't the optical compromises that may lead to distortion and vignetting and a lack of sharpness compared to the best lenses but limited aperture range.

I took thousands of pictures with a superzoom when I first went digital and some of them are amongst my favorite digital era pictures. Stick a superzoom on a decent camera and IMO no smartphone could live with it.