One lens to rule them all?

thefilmaddict

thefilmaddict

Veteran
I was looking to get a lens to use with my 90d and my pocket 6K. I’m looking for something that would be good for run and gun, never miss a shot because you have to switch a lens type of lens. I saw these two and wondered what you thought and if there was anything else like them?

Sigma 18-300 f3.5-6.3

Tamaron 18-400 f3.5-6.3

The specs seem similar. Although the tamarin gives you a longer focal length.
 
3.5 isn’t fast, but most of my lenses are 2.8. I know that means less shallow depth of field and more light required, but is it a big difference when these budget lenses are zoomed out wide as far as f-stop?
 
It's f/3.5 only on the wide end and ramps as you zoom to f/6.3. It's a noticeable difference.

At 35mm, it's most likely already past f/4 which is kind of silly with all of the great, fast glass available.

___

IMO, besides the glass being mediocre, these lenses are best for outdoor use (or emergency situations when your faster prime or zoom isn't wide or long enough).

[P.S. Wanting a fast range like that has always been everyone's conundrum.]
 
I think the 24-105mm f/4 lenses are as close as we've got to "one lens to rule them all." They have a constant aperture and have less distortion than the super zooms.

I came close to getting a Nikon 18-200mm lens a couple times, but the distortion always steered me away from them.
 
My one lens to rule them all has to also make beauty from nothing. Wide zooms don’t do that, slow zooms don’t do that. Long zooms can do that but are slow, monstrous. The Canon 85mm F/1.4L IS USM is sharper and faster than any other stabilized lens for EF mount. Speed, low light, shallow dof and bokeh, it’s also the most beautiful. The one lens that rules them all, my favorite among favorites. And it’s very hand-holdable.
 
Afaik, tamron makes the best superzooms at this price tier. Or you could spend a few more bucks and get a canon 17-120 or an angenieux :)

I have the tamron 18-270 and it always served me well when I needed it (which was for lightning-quick coverage situations without time for lens changes. Usually things like a speech at an event where the speaker would only be talking for 1 min. Or for man on the street shooting where I needed to snap from super tele to wide). Later they started selling a 16-300 which I wished I had instead because it went wider.

The usual drawbacks are all there. Soft thoughout, slow, crappy mechanics and zoom action, short focus throw, some distortion on the wide end, oof rendition a bit rough. But oddly enough, it still produced pretty pictures, especially if you just need HD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top