any one lense to replace a 18-55 and 55-250?

[IHateMyJob2004]

Today I was swapping out my 18-55 and 55-250 lenses. It was getting a bit frustrating.

Is there a good lens that does not break the bank that can serve the purpose of the 18-55 and 55-250? I'd like something that covers the 18-250 mm range but that seems to get very expensive from what I have seen.

Notes: doesn't matter but I also have a 50mm prime.

And yes, I do realize that my best option is probably to stick with what I have. Just curious of what others with more knowledge think.

REQUIRED:
Image Stabilization
Auto Focus


EDIT:
So far I see...

$450 - Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens

$600 - Canon Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens

$280 - Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Aspherical (IF) Lens for Canon Digital EOS

$400 - Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS Lens for Canon Digital EOS

$480 - Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Autofocus Zoom Lens For Canon Cameras

$300 - Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Canon Digital EOS

$650 - Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens for Canon

Prices are not as bad as I had thought...

 

[Kanalua]

I had the 18-135mm, it was a good walk around lens.

I would check out POTN for lens samples:

Canon 18-135

Canon 18-200

Sigma 18-200

Sigma 18-250

Tamron 18-200

Tamron 18-270

 

[shortylickens]

As a general rule: The wider the range of a single lens, the worse results you get at any given length compared to a fixed lens.
Yes an 18-250 would be awesome, and simplify your life (I didnt even know they made any that big) but it would never be quite as good as the same quality 18-55 plus a 55-200 plus a 200-400.

Having said that, I could deal with the image quality given the extreme convenience.
Also, I think most of those can be had a bit cheaper on Amazon. And with Prime you dont have to worry about getting screwed over.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Thinking upon things, it was a minor annoyance. I'd love a new lens (people warned me about this) but I think I should go after something like a 30mm prime or a 250mm-??mm zoom lens. have not yet run into a scenario where I need that though.

Knowing what i know now, I would have gone after an 18-250mm as my first lens since it would be great for my wife. That's the only lens a woman needs that is asking her hubby for a better camera.

 

[AkumaX]

I picked up an 18-135 on CL for around ~225 (about during the time when it got blasted for horrible reviews for some reason), a great lens @ a great price

 

[BabaBooey]

I picked up a tamron 18-250 as new in the box for $220 a few months back.

 

[mchammer187]

I got an 18-200 and I regret it. f3.5-5.6 is just not fast enough for me. I'd much rather have F2.8 or faster than the minor inconvenience of switching lenses

 

[Sid59]

I got an 18-200 and I regret it. f3.5-5.6 is just not fast enough for me. I'd much rather have F2.8 or faster than the minor inconvenience of switching lenses

true but his combo of the 18-55 and 55-200 isn't 2.8 all the way through. if the 18-200 and the combo of 55-200 have almost the same aperture, it's even.

Nikon 17-55 2.8 DX is around 1500 USD
Nikon 70-200 s.8 is around 2400 USD

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I picked up a tamron 18-250 as new in the box for $220 a few months back.

Any comments on the lens you got?

 

[akshatp]

I was in the same situation as you, right down to haveing those two lenses and being frustrated that I had to keep swapping, and I also had the nifty fifty as my only other lens.

I settled on the 18-135 (bought used on AT FS/FT) and couldnt be happier. I realized that most of my shots fell in the 30-100mm range so it worked out perfectly.

And oh btw its a fantastic lens. I know that the 18-135 gets more negative reviews than most lenses, I just dont know why.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

akshatp,

Did you get rid of the 18-55mm lense?

 

[bobdole369]

I would much prefer an array of a half dozen primes to replace both of those. 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, etc. Prime > zoom. But thats my opinion.

 

[repoman0]

I would much prefer an array of a half dozen primes to replace both of those. 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, etc. Prime > zoom. But thats my opinion.

Of course the primes will likely have better image quality and for sure larger apertures, but for many people that trade-off is insane - I know I'd never carry around six lenses. Maybe if I made money from my pictures but I usually stick with just my Sigma 17-50 f/2.8.

However OP I would encourage you to stick with shorter zoom ranges for a good mix of image quality and convenience.

 

[actuarial]

I would much prefer an array of a half dozen primes to replace both of those. 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, etc. Prime > zoom. But thats my opinion.

How does that help with the fact that he's replacing them due to frustration with swapping lenses?

I also have frustration with the 18-55 and 500-200, and have been debating what to do about it. Usually I just leave my 50/1.4 on, but sometimes I'd prefer a zoom.

I realize the 28-75 Tamron is usually a range for FF, but the majority of my shots on DX are on that range. It'd be nice to have one lens for parties/weddings and the like that let me get group shots but still allow me to zoom in. I find the 18-28 and 75+ ranges I typically know in advance I'm going to need anyways, and can just keep the other lenses for those situations. Anyone have any experience with the regular zoom Tammy?

 

[akshatp]

akshatp,

Did you get rid of the 18-55mm lense?

Nah I still have it but its been sitting in my closet since I got the new one

 

[JulesMaximus]

I have the 17-40mm f/4 as my regular lens and a 70-200mm f/4 for a zoom. I also have a 50mm f/1.4 lens. All are Canon lenses.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Thinking about it, an 18-135 might be better. That would actually take care of most of my aggrivations. Would be neat to find a 135-300+ to go with it.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Someo other ideas (but pricey). Probably not getting these but posting just so I have the results saved.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...145+4261208166

 

[Kanalua]

Thinking about it, an 18-135 might be better. That would actually take care of most of my aggrivations. Would be neat to find a 135-300+ to go with it.

Sigma makes a 150-500mm for just over $1k.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Sigma makes a 150-500mm for just over $1k.

The more I look at what I have, the more I start to think that I wish I could have done it over. Doing it a different way would cost alot more though.

Well, if I ever have money to blow, I will make some big changes.

A guy i work with has something like a 12-24mm and he was showing me what 12mm can do. I was impressed! I even started looking as some 12mm-50mm type lenses.

This is becoming a sickness!

 

[bobdole369]

How does that help with the fact that he's replacing them due to frustration with swapping lenses?

By making him understand that swapping lenses is a necessary element of SLR photography. The best cameras in the world have fixed lenses (full frame large format) so you don't even get a choice. Embrace that you can actually change your focal length and use it to your advantage. Now 6 lenses is absolutely nuts, but one thing that helped me cope was just using a single lens, and realizing I really could get the shot I wanted, I just had to use my feet or be much more creative.

 

[actuarial]

By making him understand that swapping lenses is a necessary element of SLR photography. The best cameras in the world have fixed lenses (full frame large format) so you don't even get a choice. Embrace that you can actually change your focal length and use it to your advantage. Now 6 lenses is absolutely nuts, but one thing that helped me cope was just using a single lens, and realizing I really could get the shot I wanted, I just had to use my feet or be much more creative.

I agree with the prime theory. I shoot probably 80% of my shots with a 50/1.4, which on DX can get a little tight indoors sometimes. But it's long enough that it's flattering to the subject.

What I want down the road is to get rid of the 50/1.4 and replace it with a 35/1.8 and an 85/1.8 (probably about the same cost to be honest). 35 for inside, 85 for outdoors and for portraits. All I need. Keep the kit lenses for the occasional group shots or when taking pictures of kids playing sports.

My point was that if he has two zooms and he is constantly switching, you're never going to convince him on even less flexibility (even if it will maximize the quality of the photos).

 

[fralexandr]

the tamron 18-250 is supposed to be superior to the tamron 18-200 pretty much across the board.

slightly off topic,
for pentax, the tamron 18-250 is pretty much the best superzoom available and regularly goes for $300-$400 USD pretty much only available used (the pentax 18-250 is almost the same lens as the tamron 18-250).
i'm sure there are probably better superzooms on canon and nikon, but probably not for the price.

if you don't really need/want the 135mm+ ranges, the 18-135 is probably a better buy.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Today I was swapping out my 18-55 and 55-250 lenses. It was getting a bit frustrating.

Is there a good lens that does not break the bank that can serve the purpose of the 18-55 and 55-250? I'd like something that covers the 18-250 mm range but that seems to get very expensive from what I have seen.

Notes: doesn't matter but I also have a 50mm prime.

And yes, I do realize that my best option is probably to stick with what I have. Just curious of what others with more knowledge think.

REQUIRED:
Image Stabilization
Auto Focus


EDIT:
So far I see...

$450 - Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens

$600 - Canon Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens

$280 - Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Aspherical (IF) Lens for Canon Digital EOS

$400 - Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS Lens for Canon Digital EOS

$480 - Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Autofocus Zoom Lens For Canon Cameras

$300 - Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro Lens for Canon Digital EOS

$650 - Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD AF Lens for Canon

Prices are not as bad as I had thought...

Those f/6.3 numbers on the Sigma/Tamron lenses would make me cautious. I would stick to Canon and go with the 18-200. It will be very convienant, with every shot a compromise. BUT, if that is the primary consideration then you'll love it. Keep the 50mm.

JR

 

[finbarqs]

what would make you cautious of them? It just means the lens isn't very big to support a wider aperture. When you take a portrait @ f/6.3 @ 270mm, you'll get some very pleasing bokeh results as well... It's not always about wide open aperture, especially when you want to get your proper focus!

Plus it has VC (Vibration Compensation).

When you see something like the canon 70-200 F/2.8L when it's f/2.8 throughout the focal length, that just means it has an articulating aperture. I'm sure if someone REALLY wanted to, they can mod the lens to reveal it's TRUE aperture @ 70mm... it'll probably be somewhere close to like f/1.8-2.8