Yeah, pretty much. It's what I call the "One Lens to Rule Them All" line of thinking.I'm no lens expert, but is the idea of a 18-300mm a universal do-it-all lens?
You give up a lot, IMO, when doing this... Yes, there are exceptions but you generally give up image quality and the 18-300mm is no exception here. They're also heavy and slow as soon as you start to use any significant degree of zoom. For a D5100 I would suggest a wide-to-medium telephoto like the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 or the Nikon 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6 VR as a general purpose lens; a good fast prime like the 35mm or 50mm f/1.8G and one big zoom like the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 personally. Three lenses and you're pretty much covered. Now if you routinely want to get great shots of hummingbirds, or dangerous game, then that changes things obviously.I've never even heard of such. Does an owner gain anything with a lens like that versus buying an 18-55mm and a 50-300mm? Would the weight and length of an 18-300 make it cumbersome to carry? Are it's optics and maximum aperture as good as the separate lenses? Just curious about all of this.
I'm no lens expert, but is the idea of a 18-300mm a universal do-it-all lens? I've never even heard of such. Does an owner gain anything with a lens like that.. . .
You give up a lot, IMO, when doing this... Yes, there are exceptions but you generally give up image quality. . .
I have an all-in-one for situations where I know I won't be able to change lenses. For instance, my wife and I went to Hawaii a couple months back. I knew there would be at least two situations where changing lenses would be an issue. When you visit the USS Arizona / Pearl Harbor Memorial you are not allowed to bring any bags but are allowed to bring a camera. We also took a helicopter tour over Volcano National Park. In both cases having a all-in-one were perfect.
When I shot DX I had the Nikon 18-200 and now that I'm shooting FX I have a Tamron 28-300. I purchased both used realizing they wouldn't be primary lenses. If you can afford to have an all-in-one in your kit and can manage any potential trade-offs, they are useful.
And I certainly don't mean to imply they don't have their place. My overarching point was how there's always going to be some give and take when it comes to optics. If you're happy with the exchange, great; but my point, again, is that there is that there is most definitely going to be an exchange somewhere along the continuum and, usually it seems to me, the first thing to go is image quality.I have an all-in-one for situations where I know I won't be able to change lenses. For instance, my wife and I went to Hawaii a couple months back. I knew there would be at least two situations where changing lenses would be an issue. When you visit the USS Arizona / Pearl Harbor Memorial you are not allowed to bring any bags but are allowed to bring a camera. We also took a helicopter tour over Volcano National Park. In both cases having a all-in-one were perfect.
When I shot DX I had the Nikon 18-200 and now that I'm shooting FX I have a Tamron 28-300. I purchased both used realizing they wouldn't be primary lenses. If you can afford to have an all-in-one in your kit and can manage any potential trade-offs, they are useful.