Superzooms?

[Maximus]

Yes, I know they're a compromise, but for a Florida/Disney trip, an SLR is quite heavy (compared to a bridge) to carry around without the extra weight of several lenses. That said, and taking into consideration the extra light, any of the superzooms worth consideration with an acceptable degree of compromise?

Best I have at present is a Tamron Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD which is/was a canny lens for SLR but with the sensor equates to approx 45-120mm - probably too wide for close-ups. I have an older kit lens from my first ever DSLR 18-55mm but although a lot better at the wide end doesn't have the reach.

Does anyone have any positives for an all-in-one/walkabout lens.

 

[smoker]

I have the sigma 18-200. It's not a bad lens up to about 100mm, thereafter pretty cack. The 24-105L is a great lens but big.

 

[UaeExile]

The 24-105L is probably the ideal walkabout lens, although it is a bit bulky and not cheap. Also on a cropped sensor, it's not going to be great for wide-angled shots.

I have a little rule I go by for travel photography, and that's if I can't take my best gear, I don't take my DSLR at all. Instead I take one of my high end compacts and just accept that I'll have good holiday snaps, rather than bad attempts at photography - if that makes sense

 

[Maximus]

Thanks both - I have been looking at the massive Tamron - as I say I have the 28-75 - a great lens, but the 18-270 is amazing (theoretically - a 15x zoom) I do have a decent Panasonic bridge camera with large zoom. This will probably be the last Florida trip for a while which will include the parks - hence I wanted "better"

From what I read though, and there's loads on line at its extremes, the Tamron is pretty useless - anything beyond 200mm is a waste. It can be vastly improved used at f8 and with the favourable light in Orlando, compared to over here. While I agree with the best gear for the job, the thought of walking around the Magic kingdom etc. for up to 12 hours in September with a bag full of kit and having to change lenses with sweaty/sun-oiled hands etc. does not appeal lol.

 

[smoker]

Generally speaking the larger the zoom range, the worse the IQ. It's the price you pay for not having to fanny around changing lenses. If the IQ is shit you might actually be better off using a higher quality shorter lenses and cropping.

 

[Maximus]

Generally speaking the larger the zoom range, the worse the IQ. It's the price you pay for not having to fanny around changing lenses. If the IQ is shit you might actually be better off using a higher quality shorter lenses and cropping.

This is a compromise/trade-off I was willing to accept. There is so much contradictory/anecdotal evidence on the web that I'm not sure who/what to believe.

Compromise is not usually in my nature, but I do have the two lenses - my plan is to take both the 18-55 3.5-5.6 Sigma (Kit lens) and the 24-75 Tamron - the first is very much a poor lens, but improves immensely at f5.6 and especially f8 - I am relying on the Floridian sunshine/light to make that a reality. The Tamron is a proven lens - especially with the crop/1.6 x sensor. Not as wide and also struggles with low-light, i.e. indoor shots possibly? Will use them on alternate days/visits.

The nearest I could find to a decent zoom to cover the wide angle was Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS - too expensive. May as well step down and alternate the one's I have and get back to basics. I suspected this all along, but I suppose I was just hoping one of these superzooms might have broken the mould.