Good All Around Lens for WDW?

[blueboxdoctor]

Hi all, I know I've been posting here a bit lately, but I was wondering, what is a good all around lens? I really like my 11-16mm, but that's a more specialty lens and I already have an idea of the type of shots I want to do with it. My 35mm is a snapshot/portrait lens, so it'll probably be on most of the time. I'm thinking of possibly getting an all purpose lens for my next, next trip. I'm looking at a:

Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM

I figure with that I can basically have it on during daytime and decent evening lighting situations and be fine and eliminate the need to walk around with a camera bag all day. I know it's not an excellent lens but I think it may be a nice upgrade from my 18-55mm kit lens that came with the camera. Something I can just pop on and not worry about. I know Nikon has an equivalent but it's also double the price, which is not something I'm really interesting in spending so much on, at least not at this point in time.

Just wondering what you guys think of this lens or if you have any suggestions for an all around lens for a Nikon D3300.

 

[wdwmagic]

The superzooms are very convenient for sure. That kind of zoom range covers a lot of scenarios. It is not particularly suited to low light situations, and has a variable aperture, so at some zoom setting you will be up at 6.3

I think it all depends on your expectations. It is convenience over performance, so if that is the right criteria for you, go for it. If you are the type of person who likes to analyze photos and look for improvement, you might not be happy.

For me, the best single lens walk around is a 17-55 on a crop, 24-70 on a full frame. That covers the vast majority of situations and offers very high performance. I rarely need zoom over the top end on those lenses, so having the ability to get to 250 is not used often, and isn't worth the compromise to have that available.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I use the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II with my D7100. Excellent all around lens for Disney. It would work quite well with the D3300.http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-pr...dx-nikkor-18-200mm-f%2f3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-ii.html

 

[blueboxdoctor]

I use the AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II with my D7100. Excellent all around lens for Disney. It would work quite well with the D3300.

The thing that is putting me off that lens is it is about $600, and I'm not sure if it's really that much better quality for the price

 

[blueboxdoctor]

The superzooms are very convenient for sure. That kind of zoom range covers a lot of scenarios. It is not particularly suited to low light situations, and has a variable aperture, so at some zoom setting you will be up at 6.3

I think it all depends on your expectations. It is convenience over performance, so if that is the right criteria for you, go for it. If you are the type of person who likes to analyze photos and look for improvement, you might not be happy.

For me, the best single lens walk around is a 17-55 on a crop, 24-70 on a full frame. That covers the vast majority of situations and offers very high performance. I rarely need zoom over the top end on those lenses, so having the ability to get to 250 is not used often, and isn't worth the compromise to have that available.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if it would be a nice little upgrade from my 18-55mm kit lens. There is a difference in quality I notice between that lens, my Nikon 35mm, and my Tokina ultrawide. I've been looking for examples of pictures of the Sigma 18-250mm. And yeah, I was reading up on the aperture, took me a little bit to realize what it meant. I think I may try out a zoom lens similar to this at Best Buy to see what I think of it (obviously there may be quality differences between a Sigma and Nikon lens, but still should offer a decent feel for the zoom). I'm thinking it may be a good lens for when I go to NYC or another city/crowded location (which I've been bringing my 35mm for, though I'd like something a little wider angle for architecture) instead of having to bring multiple lenses.

But I hear what you're saying about quality vs. convenience. I guess my question is, how much of a quality hit do these lenses give?

Edit: as a side note, I don't know if it helps, but this may help show the type of photography I've been doing

I'm new to photography (started in February, but I think I have progressed some since then) so I'm still finding my way with what type of photography I like to do.

 

[wdwmagic]

But I hear what you're saying about quality vs. convenience. I guess my question is, how much of a quality hit do these lenses give?

The superzoom are typically poor at the extremities. i.e. at 18 and 250. They get soft and mushy, and you end up not using the lens at those settings. Even with that, they are still very versatile, even if used from say 20 to 200.

I think it is down to each individual as to which focal lengths are needed and how much shooting will be done at them.

In order of most use, I like:

Standard Zoom 17-55
Ultra Wide 10 - 22
Tele 70-200

I used to use a superzoom, but got fed up with the slow AF that is typical on those lenses, very soft at wide and tele end, and poor low light performance due to the aperture range not being very good.

 

[blueboxdoctor]

The superzoom are typically poor at the extremities. i.e. at 18 and 250. They get soft and mushy, and you end up not using the lens at those settings. Even with that, they are still very versatile, even if used from say 20 to 200.

I think it is down to each individual as to which focal lengths are needed and how much shooting will be done at them.

In order of most use, I like:

Standard Zoom 17-55
Ultra Wide 10 - 22
Tele 70-200

I used to use a superzoom, but got fed up with the slow AF that is typical on those lenses, very soft at wide and tele end, and poor low light performance due to the aperture range not being very good.

Ok, my next question is, what is the difference between a superzoom and a telephoto? I'd have no problem getting something like you said with 70-200mm. I'm just not quite sure what the difference between the two types of lenses are. Would a telephoto be better at 70 and 200 than the superzoom would be at 18 and 250?

And in which case, are there any telephoto lenses you may suggest to look at?

 

[wdwmagic]

Ok, my next question is, what is the difference between a superzoom and a telephoto? I'd have no problem getting something like you said with 70-200mm. I'm just not quite sure what the difference between the two types of lenses are. Would a telephoto be better at 70 and 200 than the superzoom would be at 18 and 250?

And in which case, are there any telephoto lenses you may suggest to look at?

Yep the 70-200 is a standard tele zoom lens that offers very good performance. No zoom is going to match a prime lens, but the non-superzoom lenses, such as the 24-70, 70-200 are about as good as they come. They have very fast AF, can be very good in low light, down to f2.8 or f4, and they often have fixed aperture across the entire zoom range, so you don't have to lose light as you zoom in.

The reason they perform better than the superzoom is because the zoom range is less extreme. Going from 70-200 is very different than going from 18-250. There are limits to the optical design, hence the compromise with the superzoom.

I've never personally had much luck with third party manufactures like Sigma and Tamron (lots of AF issues), so my only experience with a 70-200 is a Canon L 70-200 f4, which is a fantastic lens.

They are typically more expensive than the superzoom though (even though they have less zoom range), due to the high-end features and better glass.

 

[blueboxdoctor]

Yep the 70-200 is a standard tele zoom lens that offers very good performance. No zoom is going to match a prime lens, but the non-superzoom lenses, such as the 24-70, 70-200 are about as good as they come. They have very fast AF, can be very good in low light, down to f2.8 or f4, and they often have fixed aperture across the entire zoom range, so you don't have to lose light as you zoom in.

The reason they perform better than the superzoom is because the zoom range is less extreme. Going from 70-200 is very different than going from 18-250. There are limits to the optical design, hence the compromise with the superzoom.

I've never personally had much luck with third party manufactures like Sigma and Tamron (lots of AF issues), so my only experience with a 70-200 is a Canon L 70-200 f4, which is a fantastic lens.

They are typically more expensive than the superzoom though (even though they have less zoom range), due to the high-end features and better glass.

Thanks for the info, definitely good to know. After doing some quick research it seems there are two lenses that are getting good remarks (trying to see how the autofocus is on them, which is also important as you said):

Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 DG OS SLD

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED

Also at the more extreme end price wise (well not extreme but more than these) is this Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED which seems to usually go for $300 refurbished on Nikon's official site.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

The thing that is putting me off that lens is it is about $600, and I'm not sure if it's really that much better quality for the price

According to the reviews, yes, it is much better. The AF is extremely fast, even at the 200 extreme. I will have to agree that it may not be the best for certain low light conditions, but I've gotten some excellent night time photos with it. The VR works very well to help with slower shutter speeds.

 

[sporadic]

I never take anything longer than 55mm myself on a crop body. There's been a few times I wanted something longer, like character closeups during parades, but I live. Really enjoyed my 35mm prime last trip and of course ultra wide options are always fun.

 

[NowInc]

I noticed you mentioned price being something you took note of. I am going to be blunt on this, but cheap glass is cheap for a reason. The good news is that GOOD glass will last you forever (if taken care of). Its worth the investment. Yes some go into the +$1000 range, but its for good reason, I assure you.

One thing you may want to do as well, instead of reading reviews..YOUTUBE reviews as well. MOST of the time they will do a comparison to other lenses in a similar range and weigh the pros and cons between them.

 

[KeithVH]

We seem to be all over the map here. My suggestion would be to review past trip pictures. Categorize them into focal length groupings and see whether you're shooting that much at the longer end. There's a good chance you may not have that many. I have found the only time I need any reach is when I actually go in for the purpose of shooting and use the length to isolate certain items. I'm one of those who definitely prefers shooting on the wide end when in the parks due to the close quarters, especially when with family. And while it has been mentioned, it can't be stressed enough that an all-in-one represents a lot of compromises - are you really ready to accept ALL of them just to have a little extra reach for a smaller percentage of shots?

 

[blueboxdoctor]

I noticed you mentioned price being something you took note of. I am going to be blunt on this, but cheap glass is cheap for a reason. The good news is that GOOD glass will last you forever (if taken care of). Its worth the investment. Yes some go into the +$1000 range, but its for good reason, I assure you.

One thing you may want to do as well, instead of reading reviews..YOUTUBE reviews as well. MOST of the time they will do a comparison to other lenses in a similar range and weigh the pros and cons between them.

I started looking at comparisons and it seems for me, I currently really like what I'm seeing out of the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, which is $500. Not so bad for price (especially for $300 used on Nikon's site). I looked at comparison photos of other similar ones in the class for DX cameras, and really, it seems to be far beyond the other ones in its class.

 

[blueboxdoctor]

We seem to be all over the map here. My suggestion would be to review past trip pictures. Categorize them into focal length groupings and see whether you're shooting that much at the longer end. There's a good chance you may not have that many. I have found the only time I need any reach is when I actually go in for the purpose of shooting and use the length to isolate certain items. I'm one of those who definitely prefers shooting on the wide end when in the parks due to the close quarters, especially when with family. And while it has been mentioned, it can't be stressed enough that an all-in-one represents a lot of compromises - are you really ready to accept ALL of them just to have a little extra reach for a smaller percentage of shots?

Yeah, that was my bad, but I did learn about superzooms so that's good, and I also learned that I don't want to make those compromises in quality. So I think my main lenses for this trip are going to be my 35mm and 11-16mm, plus I'm familiar with them so I don't want to mess with getting a new lens so soon and trying to figure it out. I'm thinking I will go with a telephoto for future use, seriously thinking of getting the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I prefer whatever lens is on my camera....

 

[KeithVH]

When I was a kid, we took pictures without a lens, uphill, and we were happy to have that . . .

 

[PhotoDave219]

When I was a kid, we took pictures without a lens, uphill, and we were happy to have that . . .

... both ways, in the snow..... with none of those fancy electronics to short out in the snow either....